History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWho were Scythians?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Author
AFG-PaShTuN View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFG-PaShTuN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 09:57
Why are some people still keen to search more into the Scythian history when most of their questions are answered?

I'll put it this way:

Saka/Scythians are the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan, there are many reasons that prove it, here are some that i know:

:: Southern Afghanistan was once called SAKA-STAN = The Land of Sakas
:: One of the biggest Pashtun/Afghan Tribe that lives there today is called Sakzai/Sakazai = Children or Son of Sak/Saka.
:: The Sakas of South Afghanistan still live in the exact same place as mentioned two thousand years ago, by historians such as Herodotus.
:: Pashto or Afghan language is believed to be very closely related to Saka language, in fact Proto-Pashto is known as Saka.
:: Saka = Blood related in Pashto, for ex. Saka Wror = Blood Brother

There are many other reasons to believe that the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan are the direct decendents of the Saka people, they might have moved to other places, but their origin or homeland is most likely to be the modern Afghanistan.


Edited by AFG-PaShTuN
Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 16:25

I am reading a book on the peoples of the steppe but it is mostly about the Scythians.  Here is what i know so far.

The Scythians before they became horse riders they lived in small semi settled villages like most of the rest of they world. 

Once they figured out horse riding they combined it with thier archary skills and in so doing became one of the most powerful forces of that time.

Once they became horse men they went away from settled life and became nomads and traveled with thier horses sheeps etc.

As thier power grew they soon began to raid near by greek colonies near the black sea.  The settled Greeks were so awe struck by the fighting ability of these horse men that soon they began paying them with gold and grain so that they would not attack them.

As time went on the Scythians became allies of the Assyrians and helped them conqure the cities of southern Iraq. 

Latter the Scythhians fought against Darius the Great before he went to Greece with his army of 700,000 men.  Thier was no clear winner but the Scythians angered Darius by constantly harrasing his army and buring fields as they went to starve Darius's Army. 

Even Alexander the great sent his army under command of one of his local leaders to punish the Scythians and he was easily destroyed.

Only Phillip the Great Alexanders father defeated the Scythians show to history that he was one of the Greatist leaders in the ancient world by defeating the skilled horse archers of the steppes.

Eventually though the Scythians began to settle down into villages agian and lost thier power.  Leaving the Sarmations with a chance to take the reins.  And so the Sarmations surrounded the Scythian villages.

Although i agree that the Scythians left alot of valueable beutiful golden items  for us to uncover.  They were not the ones who built those items.

Almost all of the golden treasures that the Scythians owned were made by skilled Greek smyths.

As far as the religion of the Scythians they seem to have shown alot of respect to dead people of high rank in thier society. 

Many times when a King or Queen or noble man died the scythians would put arrows, throught thier hands cut thier ears, bleed themselves  etc.

They also killed several animals and buried them with thier owners and even killed relatives and servents of that person most of the time by strangulation and buried them as well.

Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 16:37
Originally posted by AFG-PaShTuN AFG-PaShTuN wrote:

Why are some people still keen to search more into the Scythian history when most of their questions are answered?

I'll put it this way:

Saka/Scythians are the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan, there are many reasons that prove it, here are some that i know:

:: Southern Afghanistan was once called SAKA-STAN = The Land of Sakas

sadly this isn't very strong or clear evidence as the area was at the very edge of the ancient saka lands
Quote
:: One of the biggest Pashtun/Afghan Tribe that lives there today is called Sakzai/Sakazai = Children or Son of Sak/Saka.

same as above
Quote
:: The Sakas of South Afghanistan still live in the exact same place as mentioned two thousand years ago, by historians such as Herodotus.

no, entirely different place (was West of the Caspian Sea)
Quote
:: Pashto or Afghan language is believed to be very closely related to Saka language, in fact Proto-Pashto is known as Saka.

It's Indo-Iranian, and thus related  (but not closely).  It only traces back to the 16th C. (though presumbly it is older)
Quote
:: Saka = Blood related in Pashto, for ex. Saka Wror = Blood Brother

There are many other reasons to believe that the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan are the direct decendents of the Saka people, they might have moved to other places, but their origin or homeland is most likely to be the modern Afghanistan.

It's a theory, but not a strong one.
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 21:57
Originally posted by Alp Ertunga Alp Ertunga wrote:

most of not all the scythians left central asia thousands of years ago.

do you have any proof of this opinion?

 its more likely that the scythians and the turkic tribes mixed. that wouldnt make any of the modern turkic tribes descendents, becaus they wouldnt be directly related.

 good, now you  are become  getting closer the truth ,but you did little mistake here .  im an Uyghur, i tell you little about Uyghur history, the modern Uyghurs formed of two groups:  one group is a nomadic people --ancient Uyghurs who migrated from Mungghul steppe ,they were turkik people,another group is the local Tarim basin people who were iranic people ,such as scythian,and later Tocharian .   we  are all beliving that the two groups of people are our ancester .  we are directly related to our iranic ancester as much as our turkik ancester . 

and another one thing that, ancester of ancient Uyghurs who lived in Munghul steppe were a people was called in chinese history as Dingling (2000--3000 years ago)who once lived around the Baykal lake and south Sibiria . according to chinese history books and archiologic evidence made by Russian scintisits ,the Dingling people were  I-E people,they were tall ,blue eyed, yellow or brown haired people . and it is still dont known to us which language the Dingling people spoken.   but later the Dingling people mixed up with Mongghuloid people bacame turkik people and allied with other tribes ,and calles themselves as Uyghur .

thats why i belive that we have same origon .

it doesnt matter what your people believe. i showed you other examples of people believing that they are descendents of something without evidence.

Originally posted by Alp Ertunga Alp Ertunga wrote:

one question: i read in some books that modern iranian people formed two group people  , one of them nomadic people who came from centeral asia, another group was the local people who apperance similar to Darwi people in the south India . is that right ?

i dont really understand what your asking, but i think i got the idea.

well, some iranic people like the bactrians and the sogdians settled down and created nations early in history, so yes, some iranians did settle down.

persians, parthians, medeans, etc... did not settle down till later. if you are asking if they mixed with local populations than the answer is probably yes.

Originally posted by Alp Ertunga Alp Ertunga wrote:

where do you live? did you take english courses in school?

im now living in Kashghar , east Tukistan . yes,i did take engilish course ,but only one year when i begin to learn engilish , thats the reason why my grammer is so bad .so    im studing  engilish grammer now .

 

well, i was raised in the USA.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
merced12 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merced12 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 15:11

WHO ARE ALANS?

Mirfatykh Z. ZAKIEV

An article from his articles collection book

TATARS: PROBLEMS of the HISTORY and LANGUAGE

Collection of articles on problems of lingohistory; revival and development of the Tatar nation. Kazan, 1995. Pp.38-57.

§ 1. General information. As is known from multiple sources, in the expansive region of Eurasia, namely in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus, in Near East, Middle East, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Southern and Western Siberia lived differently speaking people, called until the 9–8 cc. BC by the Greek, and then by the Roman historians, by a common name Cimmerians, in the 9–3 cc. BC by Scythians (in Russian: Skif, in Western European: Scyth), at the same time they also called them Sauromats, in the 3 cc. BC – 4 cc. AD they also called them Sarmatians. Then into general use came an ethnonim Alan.

In the Indo-European and official Soviet Russian historical sciences all of them are recognized as Iranian speaking, in particular, as the ancestors of Ossetians, not on the basis of a comprehensive study of the linguistic, mythological, ethnological, archeological and historical data, but coming only from isolated linguistic deductions. This implies that the ancestors of Ossetians lived in the expansive region of Eurasia under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans (Asses) during one thousand years BC and a thousand years AD, but in the beginning of the second millennium AD they extraordinarily quickly diminished (or adopted Türkic language) and remained in small numbers only in the Caucasus. Such presentation of the historical process in Eurasia does not bear criticism even based on the following general considerations. The historical process of the development or assimilation of peoples does not support the opinion about Iranian linguality of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans. If in such extensive region of Eurasia, as the Iranists assume, lived Iranian speaking Ossetians during a period of not less than two thousand years, then, on one hand, at the ‘arrival’ of Huns they would not have suddenly disappeared without a trace, and would not immediately turned into Türks, and on another hand the Türks, if they did not live earlier in these regions, could not have created instantaneously in the 6 cc. the Great Türkic Kaganate on the most expansive territory from the coast of Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic sea.

We should also keep in mind that the depiction of that ancient population as Iranian speaking contradicts the information of the ancient historians about multilingualism of Scythians and Sarmatians, and is not supported by the toponymical data of the above named extensive region.

Besides, if Scythians and Sarmatians were Iranian speaking, the ancient Assirian, Greek, Roman, Chinese historians could not fail to notice it, they knew well both Iranians – Persians, and the Scythians – Sarmatians, i.e. describing these peoples they would have surely noted somehow the similarity or affinity of the Persian and ‘Scythian’ languages. But we do not find even a hint of this from the ancient writers. At the same time there are many cases of identification of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans with various Türkic speaking peoples.

Lastly, if in the extensive territories of Eurasia under a common name Scythians and Sarmatians lived only Iranian speaking peoples, from where would then suddenly appear Slavic, Türkic, and Finno-Ugrian peoples. Only an ironical question is left to be asked: maybe they ‘fell from sky’?!

Thus, even the general review of the results of the Scythian and Sarmatian studies of Iranists shows that in tendentiousness they crossed the limits of unrealistic, unprovable fantasy and concoction.

On the other hand, even before, and after the emergence of the Scytho-Iranian concept, many scientists were proving and confirming the Türkic-speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans, recognizing the presence among them of Slavic, and Finno-Ugrian, and Mongolian, and also, in the smallest degree, of the Iranian peoples. In the opinion of this group of scientists, even long before AD on the extensive territories of Eurasia, under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans (Asses), lived the ancestors of Türkic peoples. They continued and continue to live now in the same regions, under various ethnonims, since the middle of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. In fact, starting in the 11 c., from the beginning of the Crusader campaigns, the settlement areas of the Türks gradually narrowed.

But, despite of the presence of the two different prevailing points of view, the (Russian - Translator’s note.) official historical science by all possible and impossible rationales tries to prove the truthfulness of the Scythian- Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian theory. Here is what V.A. Kuznetsov writes in BSE (Big Soviet Encyclopedia): ‘Alans (Lat. Alan), self-name - Irons, in the Byzantian sources - Alans, in Georgian - Osses, in Russian - Yasses, numerous Iranian speaking tribes, separated in the last century BC from the semi-nomadic Sarmatian population of Nothern Caspian, Don and Pre-Caucasus area, and settled in the I c. AD (per writings of Roman and Byzantian authors) in Meotia and N.Caucasus, from where they were making devastating incursions into Crimea, Meotia and N.Caucasus, Asia Minor, Midia. The basis of the Alan economy of that time was cattle breeding...’

Further, the author describes that in the Central N.Caucasus they formed an association, which was referred to as Alania. In the 8-9 cc. it was included in the Khazar Khaganate. On the turn of 9-10 cc. Alans form an early feudal state. In the 10 c. Alans play a significant role in Khazaria’s external connections with Byzantium, whence Christianity infiltrate to Alania.

Here V.A. Kuznetsov’s information about Alans is stated basically adequately, except that the first part of the first sentence does not correspond to reality at all: it is clear that Alans (Asses) never called themselves Irons, Irons is a self-name of Ossetians only. Hence, V.A. Kuznetsov begins the statement with a falsification, with a priory identification of Alans as Ossetians.

§ 2. On what basis was originally built the opinion about Ossetian speaking of Alans (Asses)? Here we meet with a few ‘incontestable’ facts ‘proving’ the Ossetian linguality of Alans.

It is known that the ancient historians repeatedly noted a complete similarity in language and dress of Alans and Scythians. Besides, per ancients’ message, Alans are one of Sarmatian peoples. As Iranists classify the Scythians and Sarmatians as Ossetian speaking, so, in their opinion, the Alans should certainly be recognized as Ossetian speaking.

It is known that the theory about Iranian (or Ossetian) speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans was not developed in objective research, and was created purposefully by tendentious etymologization of Scythian and Sarmatian words, through application of exclusively Indo-Iranian languages. Iranists tenaciously did not admit any other languages to the etymology of these words, not Türkic, or Slavic, or Finno-Ugrian, or Mongolian, whose carriers did not ‘fall from the sky’, but lived in these territories for centuries.

We and many other scientists more than once have shown that Scytho-Sarmatian key words are better etymologized with the help of Turkic languages. The existing etymologies of these words on the basis of the Iranian languages are not convincing, do not have an elementary system, and certainly Scytho-Sarmatian words do not have any Iranian etymology. We list below some key Scythian- Sarmatian words for illustration.

It is known that the name Scythians for the first time shows up in the Assirian documents of the middle of the 7 c. BC. The country of Scythians is called Ishkuza, Scythian kings were Ishpakai and Partatua [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 44-48].

The word Ishkuza on the Iranian basis has not been explained, but in Türkic it has possible etymologies:

1) Ishke~Echke ‘internal’; Uz - Türkic ethnonim of Oguz part of Türks (oguz~ok-uz ‘white, noble Uzes’);

2) Ishke~Eske, the first part from a word Scyth~ Scyth ~ ~Eske-de; the word Eske in the pure state, i.e. without an affix, is a Türkic ethnonim. The word Scyth (Eske-le) means ‘the people mixed with the people ‘Eske’. The word Eshkuza~ Eske-Uz is used as Uz, i.e. related to the people ‘Eske’; it is the name of the people and of the country;

3) Ishkuza consists of parts Ish-Oguz, where Ish is a variation of a word As, the ancient name of the Türks, Oguz consists of words ak and uz, and means ‘white, noble Uzes’, in turn, Uz also ascends to ethnonim As; Oguz is an ethnonim of a part of the Türks.

Abaev and Fasmer explained Ishpakai as Iranian word aspa ‘Horse’. Suggesting that the name of the Scythian prince is taken from the name of his people, in words Ishkuza and Ishpakai the initial Ish is a part of the same word. Then it is possible to suggest that in a word Ishpakai~ Ishbaga the part ish is ‘equal, friend’ + baga ‘brings up (baga has also the meanings 'he/she watches, looks, takes care of smb. – Edit.)’; ish baga ‘ finds himself equal, friends’.

Partatua has no Iranian etymology, in Türkic partatua~bardy-tua~bar-ly-tua is ‘born for creation of property, wealth’.

The key words, saved in the Greek sources, are first of all the names of Scythians’ ancestors: Targitai, Lipoksai, Arpoksai, Kolaksai; Scythian ethnonims: Sak, Scyth, Agathir (Agafirs), Gelon, Scolot, Sarmat; Scythian words that were etymologized by Herodotus himself: eorpata, enareis, arimasps; And also the names of Scythian gods: Tabiti, Papai, Ani etc. All these words are etymologized on the basis of Türkic language [see Ethnic Roots Of The Tatar People § 3].

By their ethnological features the Scythians and Sarmatians, certainly, are ancient Türkic people. Specifically, it is the ethnological affinity of Scythians and Türks that deters the advocates of the Scythian-Ossetian theory from research of Scythian ethnological problems. As to the Scytho-Turkic ethnological parallels, they were already noted by the first, and then by the subsequent Scythologists, who came to a conclusion that ‘the vestiges of Scythian culture were perpetuated and persistently preserved in the culture of Türkic-Mongolian (and in an a smaller measure in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples’ [Elnitskiy L.A., 1977, 243]. P.I.Karalkin also came to a conclusion that imperial Scythians were ancestors of the Türkic speaking peoples [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].

Ethnological features of Scythians and Sarmatians are studied in detail in the book of I.M.Miziev ‘History beside’. It lists 15 Scythian-Türkic (in a wider sense – Altaic) ethological parallels, and concludes that ‘all noted characteristics of the Scythian-Altai parallels find the nearest analogies, nearly without exception, in the culture and life of the many medieval pastoralists of the Eurasian steppes: Huns, Kipchaks etc., and almost completely continue in the traditional culture of the Türkic -Mongolian peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Volga basin, Caucasus and Altai’ [Miziev I.M., 1990,].

Thus, the message of the ancients about the similarity of the languages of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans is not a basis at all for identification of Alans as Iranian speaking. The results of the research of many scientists show that Alans, as well as their ancestors, Sarmatians and Scythians, were mainly Türkic speaking, i.e. ancestors of the Türks.

§ 3. What are the other reasons to recognize Alans (Asses) as Türkic speaking? A 1949 issue of V.I.Abaev monograph ‘Ossetian Language And Folklore’ confirms the hypothesis about Iranian speaking of Alans, in addition to the Scytho-Ossetian etymology, by: 1) text of a Zelenchuk epitaph, carved in the 11 c., and 2) phrases in Alanian language given by the Byzantian writer Ioan Tsets (1110 - 1180).

Zelenchuk epigraphic, written in Greek letters, for the first time was deciphered by Vs.F.Miller in the end of the 19 c., on the basis of Ossetian language. His translation reads: ‘Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar Bakatai son Anban Anbalan son of adolescent monument (?) (Adolescent Ira) (?)’. This translation by Vs.F.Miller is considered quite satisfactory, he makes only one slightly critical note: ‘ Though name Anbalan we cannot find at Ossetians, it sounds quite Ossetian ‘ [Miller Vs.F., 1893, 115]. V.I.Abaev makes an insignificant change in the text of translation ’Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar, Bakatar son Anbalan, Anbalan son Lag – their monument ‘ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 262].

Vs.F.Miller added 8 additional letters to the text in the very beginning of the reading of the Zelenchuk inscription, without which he would not find any Ossetian words whatsoever [Kafoev A.J., 1963, 13]. Following him, all supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, reading the Zelenchuk inscription, always resorted to various manipulations with the letters and words of the inscription [Miziev I.M., 1986, 111-116]. It should be noted that even after the deliberate modifications, the text of the Zelenchuk inscription in Ossetian language remains only a senseless set of personal names and nothing more, but in Karachaevo-Balkarian language it is read precisely and clearly. The words there, certainly, are Türkic. For example, yurt is ‘native land’, Yabgu ‘governor’, yiyip ‘gathered’, ti ‘speak’, zyl ‘year ‘, itiner ‘aspire’, bülünep – ‘separated’, etc. [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993].

In 1990 F.Sh.Fattakhov, having made a critical analysis of the available interpretations of Zelenchuk epitaph, came to a conclusion that the inscription is freely read on the basis of Türkic language. The translation from Türkic language says: ‘Jesus Christ. Name Nicola. If had grown, would not be better to patronize leading yurt. From yurt of Tarbakatai-Alan the child should be made a possessing Khan. Year of Horse’ [Fattakhov F.Sh., 1990, 43-55]. Thus, Alanian epigraphic, found in the land of Karachais and written in the 11 c., is more accurately deciphered through the language of the Karachais ancestors. Hence, Zelenchuk epigraphic cannot serve as a proof of the Iranian speaking of Alans. As to the Alanian phrase of the Byzantian writer Ioan Tsets (1110-1180), kept in the Vatican library in Rome, its deciphering was attempted with the help of the Ossetian language, with various manipulations of the text: ‘corrected’, and rearranged, and even added letters. In the translation of V.I.Abaev the record of Ioan Tsets sounds thus: ‘Good day, my Master, Queen, where from came you? Aren’t you ashamed, my Lady?’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 245]. A question rises immediately, is such reference to a Lady, a Queen, possible? Apparently, not. The Tsets phrase has such common Türkic words as khos~khosh ‘good, bye’, khotn ‘madam’, kordin ‘saw’, kaitarif ‘returned ‘, oüngnge - the idiom meaning in Balkarian ‘how could it be?’ [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 102-103].

The Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets was also deciphered by F.Sh.Fattakhov, it was shown that it is a Türkic text: ‘Tabagach – mes ele kany kerdets [...] yurnetsen kinya~e mes ele. Kaiter ony [- -] eige’ or ‘Pot hook - copper handle where did you see (?) [...] Should send a smaller (a small) handle. Bring it [- -] home’. [Fattakhov F., 1992].

Thus, Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets unequivocally speaks about Türkic linguality of Alans.

In the opinion of supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, there is another incontestable proof of the Ossetian speaking of Alans-Asses, it is the book of the Hungarian scientist Y.Nemeth ‘List of words in language of Yasses, Hungarian Alans’, published in German in Berlin in 1959, translated to Russian by V.I.Abaev and published as a separate book in 1960 in Ordjonikidze.

The entire logic of this book is built on unconditional a priory recognition of the Ossetian speaking of Asses-Alans. Because the author Y.Nemeth presents Asses-Alans as obligatorily Ossetian speaking, he attributes the list of words with Ossetian lexical units, found accidentally in 1957 in the State Archive, to the Hungarian Asses (Yasses). All the dictionary transcription work and etymologization of its words is done with a passionate aspiration to certainly find in the list Ossetian words, to attribute them to Asses (Yasses), and forcibly prove them Ossetian speaking. Therefore the dictionary awaits impartial researchers. This is a task of the future, but here it is not our concern. The question is: whether it is possible to recognize Hungarian Yasses as Ossetian speaking even with this book of Y.Nemeth, and from this whether Y.Nemeth acted correctly in attributing the list of words with expected Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Yasses?

Let’s listen to the author. He writes: “1. Until the 19 c. Yasses in Hungary form one administrative unit with Cumans (Cumans, Russ. Polovets); both peoples usually carry a common name Yazs-Kunok, i.e. ‘Yasses-Cumans’. Explanation for this is possible only as a result of old close links between two peoples” [Nemeth Y., 1960, 4]. This message of the author leads to a thought that Yasses and Cumans among Hungarians make basically a monolingual community, because they settled together, on the same territory, and carry a common ethnonim Yasses-Cumans. Let’s imagine, if Cumans and Yasses spoke unlike languages, if they came to Hungary at different times, would they settled together and would they carry a common ethnonim? Probably, not.

Further, Y.Nemeth continues: ‘Cumans came to Hungary in 1239, escaping from the invasion of the Mongols. It is therefore possible to think that Alans appeared in Hungary mainly in conjunction with the Cuman union. In its favor also speaks the coexistence of Cumans and Alans in the North Pontic, in the Caucasus and in Moldova’ [Ibis, 4]. We already know that in these regions Alans were Türkic speaking and consequently lived together with Cumans; moreover, Balkars and Karachais still call themselves Alans, and Ossetians call Balkars Assiyas. We know well that Volga Bulgars in another way are called Yasses. The Hungarian scientist Erney informs that after a victory of Svyatoslav over Bulgars in 969 the Muslims resettled from Bulgar to Hungary, and they were called Yasses [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 105].

Let’s continue the message of Y.Nemeth. ‘There are seven districts in Hungary with a name Eszlar, Oszlar (from Aslar - ‘Asses’). It is believed that in these names is hidden the name Yasses: As is the Türkic name of Alans, and -lar is Türkic plural suffix; it follows that Cumans called Yasses Aslar. However it should be noticed that in comitate Somogy (south of lake Platten) the name Eszlar is witnessed in the 1229, i.e. before the coming of Cumans, and, in addition, it was in the form Azalar’ [Nemeth Y., 1960, 4]. Nothing is left to assumption here, it is clear that the discourse is about Asses, that they call themselves Aslar in Türkic. Hence, they surely spoke Türkic, instead of Ossetian. Y.Nemeth himself writes that the plural affix -lar is not the result of the Türkic-Cuman language influence. We do not know cases when any people apply their own ethnonim with plural affix from another language.

Further, what says the following message of Y.Nemeth: ‘Anywhere, where there are Cuman populations, we meet Yass settlements’ [5]. If Cumans and Yasses were speaking unlike languages, would they settle adjacently everywhere?

Surprisingly, after these assertions, which should tip Y.Nemeth to the opinion of the ethnical and linguistical similarity or affinity of Cumans and Yasses, the author comes to a conclusion that ‘Cumans and Yasses are of different origin. Cumans are a large Türkic people... and Yasses are people of Iranian origin, branch of Alans, related to Ossetians’ [6].

The list came to storage from the archive of Batiani family. ‘Date of January 12, 1422. Contents: judicial case of the widow of George Batiani against Ioan and Stephan Safar from Chev’ [7]. Except for a notation that settlement Chev is located in the vicinity of Yass settlement, there is no basis for the assumption that this list of words belongs to Yasses, short of a deep belief by Y.Nemeth himself that list of supposedly Iranian with Ossetian tilt words should be attributed to Alan-Yass language. The surname Batiani says that he, apparently, was of Caucasus-Ossetian origin, therefore the list of words has many Ossetian words. At the same time the list has a lot of Türkic words. I.M.Miziev analyzed the list, found in Hungary, from that point of view [Miziev I.M., 1986, 117-118].

Thus, the postulation of Y.Nemeth that the list, containing Ossetian words, belongs to Yasses -Alans is more than disputable. Even more, the list of words should now be impartially deciphered anew, instead of a prejudiced aspiration to find Ossetian words there.

§ 4. With what peoples their contemporaries identified Alans? It is a very important question. One thing is the opinion of the historians contemporary with Alans, and absolutely different are the attempts of modern scientists to explain history in a certain way according to their agenda.

Reviewing the so-called Scytho-Sarmatian extensive territory, we see that the preceding peoples are frequently identified with the subsequent peoples. Thus, in Assirian sources of 7 c. BC the Cimmerians are identified with Scythians, but the modern historians interpret it as if the ancient historians confused them by mistake. For example, M.N.Pogrebova, speaking about it, writes: ‘It is possible, Assyrians also confused them.’ [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 48]. Further, in later sources the Scythians are identified with Sarmatians; Sarmatians - with Alans; Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans - with Huns; Alans, Huns - with Türks (i.e. with Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kipchaks, Oguzes) etc.

Let’s present some testimonials about Alans. Roman historian of the 4 c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well acquainted with Alans, and who left the most complete description of them, wrote, that Alans ‘in everything are similar to Huns, but are a little bit softer in customs and way of life’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242]. The translator of the ‘History of Judean war by Josephus Flavius’ (written in 70 AD) to Old Russian language the ethnonim Alans translates by a word Yass and, without a shadow of doubt, asserts that the ‘language of Yasses is known as born from the Pecheneg kin’ [Meschersky N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Miller also gives this citation, where Alans-Yasses are identified with Pechenegs-Türks, and he points out that the interpreter has replaced Scythians with Pechenegs, and Alans with Yasses [Miller Vs., 1887, 40]. It is clear that this remark does not help Vs. Miller at all to identify Alans with Ossetians, on the contrary, it says that in the 11 c. the interpreter realized very well that Pechenegs are descendents of Scythians, and that Alans are Yasses.

Besides; it is necessary to remember that the ancient historians always described Alans next to Aorses (i.e. Avars), Huns, Khazars, Sabirs, Bulgars, i.e. with Türkic speaking peoples.

Alans left a notable trace in the Middle Volga basin; here again they were identified with Türks, in particular, with Khazars. Thus, existing toponyms in this region ascend to ethnonim Alan. Udmurts have legends about ancient populations. They call a mythological hero Alan-Gasar (Alan-Khazar) and everything that was attributed to him was related to the Nugai people, i.e. Tatars, who in another way were called also Kuruk (Ku-iirk, where, ku ‘white-faced’, iirk - a synonym of the ethnonim Biger ‘the owner, rich’ – M.Z.) [Potanin G.N., 1884, 192]. Here is obvious identification of Alans with Nugais-Tatars.

In the (Russian - Translator’s note.) official historical science the cases of identification of Scythians-Alans-Huns-Khazars-Türks are usually explained by the fact that ancient historians, apparently, frequently confused these peoples. Actually, they could not be confused; for they talked of events they witnessed themselves. They did not have political directives to confuse consciously. In our deep belief, ancients mixed up nothing, but the modern historians, acting from their biases or political directives, want to interpret the ancient sources in their own way and they start ‘correcting’ them. Examining the messages of the ancients carefully and impartially, it becomes incontestably clear that in the so-called Scythian-Sarmatian regions, both in antiquity, and in the Middle Ages, lived basically the same peoples. Essentially the same peoples occupy these territories now.

It is impossible not to notice that the supporters of Alano-Ossetian theory recognize as correct only that part of the statements of the ancients, which recorded the linkage of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans, but to the other part of the message, about the linkage of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Huns-Türks-Khazars-Bulgars etc. they thoroughly ignore. Hence, they approach the study of ancient sources tendentiously and nonsystematically. That is first. Secondly, as we saw above, their identification of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans is not the proof of the Ossetian-speaking of Alans, for Scythians and Sarmatians were not Ossetian-speaking.

One more fact deserves attention. How some modern historians visualize ethnic processes in Eastern Europe?

They believe that several waves of new peoples continuously came from Asia to Eastern Europe: some of them in due course were dissolved in Europe, where the conditions of life were better. And in Asia, where the conditions of life were worse than in Europe, the new peoples quickly multiplied while closely observing the Europe: as soon as some ethnicities began to disappear there, they appeared to rush to Europe. Periodically this process was repeated. Thus, unveiled by the supporters of the official historical sciences, Cimmerians have disappeared – and appeared Scythians or, the opposite, appeared from Asia Scythians - disappeared Cimmerians; appeared Sarmatians, disappeared Scythians; among Sarmatians procreated Alans, then appeared Huns (would be first Türks), gradually disappeared Alans; appeared Avars (Aores -Aorses), disappeared Huns; appeared Türks, disappeared Avars; appeared Bolgars, disappeared Khazars; then gradually from Asia to Europe came Pechenegs, Kipchaks, Tataro-Mongols, after which the arrival of Türks from Asia to Europe stopped. For a rationally thinking scientist, such process of constant re-supply of the population of Europe due to the arrival of ‘nomads’ from Asia can not seem plausibly reflect the reality.

Why the ancient historians frequently identified (not confused!) the previous with the subsequent? The answer is clear: in such extensive territories the people basically did not change, changed only the ethnonim. The name of the group that occupied a ruling position became a common ethnonim of the whole people or even of the whole large territory subordinated to that group. And in various periods of history various groups were ruling. Therefore the same people with the flow of time had changing ethnonims. Thus, in the extensive territories of Scythians and Sarmatians in antiquity lived the ancestors of those peoples that basically occupy these territories today. From this point of view, in Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans we first of all should search for Türks, Slavs and Finno-Ugrians, instead of Iranian lingual Ossetians, who left intermittent traces only in the Caucasian region. The cases of identification of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans with Türkic people reach up to the present. For example, as in antiquity, so also now the Türkic ‘Balkars and Karachais call themselves by an ethnonim Alans, as, for example, Adygeys... call themselves Adyga, the Georgians - Sakartvelo, Ossetians - Iron, Yakuts - Sakha etc. Mengrels call Karachais Alans; Ossetians call Balkars Asses’ [Khabichev M.A., 1977, 75]. It is a fact, impossible to hide from. But one of the founders of the Sarmato-Scytho-Ossetian theory Vs. Miller falsifies it as follows. Assuming that Balkars and Karachais should certainly be immigrants, and the Ossetians are locals, he writes: ‘Balkars (an immigrant tribe), purged Ossetians from these places, they (i.e. Ossetians) call them Asses (Asiag is Balkarian, Asi is the country they occupied), the ancient name is preserved in the annals in a form Yasses. However, there is no doubt, that not Balkars, who came to the present place rather late, but Ossetians were Yasses of our annals; but the name was attached to the district and has remained, despite of the change in the population. Chechen is called in Ossetian Ttsetsenag, Ingush – Mäkäl, Nogai - Nogayag’ [Miller Vs., 1886, 7]. There is a question, why Ossetians name correctly both Chechens, and Ingushes, and Nogais, making a mistake only in relation to Balkars? Deciphering the mysterious tangle of Vs. Miller, it turns out that Ossetians at first called themselves and their territories Asiag, then, when the Ossetians snoozed, came Balkars and transferred sleeping Ossetians to another territory, taking their former land. The next day the Ossetians woke up and, using the name of the territory, began using their own ethnonim Yasses for Balkars, instead of themselves, as before, and also began to call themselves Ironians, for they did not recall how they were called earlier. It would be clear to every child that in real life this does not happen and cannot happen. This ‘fairy tale’ was necessary for Vs. Miller to prove by any means the equivalency of the historical Asses and Ossetians.

Further, Vs. Miller gives examples from the Caucasus toponymy reminding Ossetian words. Nobody would doubt that among Caucasian toponyms are Ossetian’s, for they lived there, but at the same time there is a lot of Türkic names, experts estimate there are many more of the last. From several toponymic facts and from the fact that instead of themselves Ossetians call Balkars (by ‘mistake’) Asses, which works against the author, Vs. Miller resolves: ‘There is a reason to think that the ancestors of Ossetians were included in the composition of the Caucasian Alans ‘ [Ibis, 15]. Thus, he kept silent the fact that Balkars and Karachais call themselves by ethnonim Alans, and they are called Alans by Mengrels.

Thus, Alans, in the firm opinion of their contemporaries, were Türkic speaking. If they were Ossetian or Iranian speaking, the numerous historians would have mentioned it somewhere.

§ 5. Ethnolinguistical nature of Asses -Alans by other data. The name Alans is mentioned for the first time in the sources in the 1c. BC, but the variants of the name As are found much earlier. For example, in the Assirian and other ancient Eastern sources ‘the name Uds is traced from a deep antiquity, namely from the 3 millennium BC, which can be connected with Caspian Uds’ [Elnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. Based on the usual interchange of sounds d-z in Türkic languages it is possible to conclude, that the name Ud is a variant of an ethnonim Uz, which, certainly, meant Türks (compare ashina~asina ‘mother of As’) and means a part of the Türks, i.e. Oguzes (ak~uz ‘white, noble Uzes ‘). The phonetic variants of the ethnonim Uz are well known: Ud, Us, Os, Yos, Yass, Ash, Ish etc.

It remains a puzzle why Asses became referred to as Alans, why the sources known to us identify Asses and Alans. About the etymology of the word Alan there are various points of view, but none of them tries to deduce it from the word Alban. Meanwhile, such attempt could be very fruitful, for Alans lived in Caucasian Albania and it is not known until now, who were these Albans. From the 1 c. BC to 8 c. AD this people is frequently mentioned in many sources, its main population lived in Caucasian Albania, with the territory by the Caspian sea, north of the river Kura. Albania approximately corresponds to Shirvan.

In Scythian and Sarmatian time in this region could have lived one of the ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, called Aluan (Aluank). As notes F.Mamedova, the Albanian self-consciousness of the inhabitants of these places is reflected in their self-name aluank from the 1 c. BC to 8 c. AD, within the limits of all of the Albania, and after the ‘fall of the Albanian Kingdom, as a fragmental phenomenon, both the ethnonim, and the Albanian self-consciousness is traceable in the 9-19 cc. in one part of the country - in Artsakh ‘ [Mamedova Farida, 1989, 109].

By the phonetic laws of the Türkic language the word aluank could have variants Alan, Alban, Alvan. The sound k, apparently, is a part of an affix of belonging -nyky (Aluannyky - ‘the people belonging to Aluan’). Strongly reduced y is almost not heard, therefore it dropped out very quickly, double nn in due course gives one n, thus comes a word aluank , where the sound k is further reduced. As to the sound u, it sounds as w, and w usually sounds as a zero sound, or b, or v. So, from Aluau~Alyuan were formed Alan, Alban, and Alvan. All of them were actively used. Variation Alban in Yakut means ‘resourceful, good looking, beautiful’. If this meaning was used in the word Alan, it proves the message of Ammianus Marcellinus that ‘almost all Alans are tall and have fair hair, beautiful face, eyesight is if not furious, still is fearsome’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, 241].

Thus, Alans in Caucasus, possibly, were originally known under ethnonim Aluan, which then has received the forms Alan, Alban, and Alvan.

Let’s address another ethnonim of Alans, ethnonim As with its numerous phonetic variations. In the ancient Türkic inscription monuments of the 8 c. Asses are listed as Türkic tribes. They are mentioned multiple times next to the Türks, Kirghiz, and are presented as a branch of Türks-Turgeshes [Bartold V.V., 1968, 204], and Kirghizes in the valley of the river Chu [Bartold V.V., 1963, 492]. The Eastern historians of the 10-11 cc., including M.Kashgari, write about the tribe ‘az keshe ‘people Az’ which, alongside with Alans and Kasa (Kasogs), undoubtedly, wereTürkic tribes [Bartold V.V., 1973, 109]. Al Biruni as a scientist declares that the language of Asses and Alans reminds the languages of Khoresmians and Pechenegs [Klyashtornyi S.G.,1964, 174-175]. Here it should be noted that Khoresmian is presumed as an Iranian language solely on the basis of few words preserved in the Arabian sources, just as Iranists have imposed this language on Tokhars and Sogdians, and other historical peoples. Actually, Khorezmians were basically Türkic speaking, and were included in the Massagetan confederation union, which the ancients identified with Huns. And as stated by Al Biruni, the Khoresmian language was close to Pechenegian, which, in turn, as acknowledged by the interpreter of Joseph Flavius, resembled Alanian-Yass language.

Let’s turn to the Russian annals, which say that in 965 AD Svyatoslav attacked Kozars (Khazars - M.Z.) and defeated both Yasses, and Kosogs. Here is an implication, identifying Khazars with Yasses. Besides, the Orientalists, identifying this statement with that of the Eastern historian Ibn Khaukal, assert that it tells about the Svyatoslav Volga campaign against Khazars, Bulgars, and Burtases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1887, 103]. If that is so, it means that Bulgars and Burtases of Volga were called Yasses. As writes S.M.Shpilevsky, the Russian prince Andrey Bogolubsky, living in the 12 c., had Bulgarian wife [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115]. And historian V.N.Tatischev calls ‘Yassian Princess’ the wife of the Prince, and asserts that the brother of the ‘Yassian Princess’ (brother - in - law of the Prince) Küchük killed Prince A. Bogolubsky in 1175 [Tatischev V.N., 1962, 375]. Küchük is obviously a Türkic name. The presence of this word in many Türkic ethnonims also says that ethnonim As designated Türkic tribes. So, V.Romadin, who prepared the works of V.V.Bartold for publishing, based on the fact that in the composition of the 7 c. ‘Badaiat-tavarikh’ the Kirghizes are called Asses, the ethnonim Kirghiz, which consist of two words kyryk and As (‘forty Asses’), connect it to the ethnic or geographical term Az, As or Us [Bartold V.V., 1963, 485]. The basis as (yas, az, us, uz), apparently, is present in the ethnonims Burtas, (burta-As) - ‘forest Asses’ or ‘Asses, engaged in honey’, Yazgyr (Oguz tribes in M.Kashgari), Yasyr – Türkmenian tribes [Kononov A.N., 1958, 92], Yazygs is a Sarmatian tribe, Oguzes ‘white, noble Uses’, Taulas (tauly Asses), i.e. ‘ mountain Asses’, Suas ‘water Asses’. Maris, in their ancient tradition, called Kazan Tatars Suases, and a part of them does it now. Ethnonim Suas was a self-name of Tatars [Chernyshev E.I., 1963, 135; Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 50-54].

Let’s pay a special attention to last two ethnonims: Taulas and Suas. As in a word Taulas (Tulas), which is the name of one of the mountain areas of Khazaria [Bartold V.V., 1973, 541, 544], and also, apparently, of its population, so in the word Suas the root As is applied together with Türkic determining words, which once again proves the Türkic speaking of Asses.

The Perm Tatars, whose ancestors were directly connected with Biar (Bilyar) and Bulgars, before acceptance of the ethnonim Tatars, which at that time was a status rank, called themselves Ostyak, which means ‘Ossian (Yassian) people’, for Ostyak comes from a word Ostyk~Oslyk. Ostyaks also took part in the formation of Bashkirs, therefore Perm and Western Siberian Tatars, and a part of Bashkirs, who were their Eastern neighbors, are called now Ostyak~Ishtyak~Ushtyak. The Tatar historian of the end of the 18-beginning of 19 cc. Yalchigul considered himself to be Bolgarlyk Ishtyak. Even in the 18 c. the Perm Tatars, in their appeals, stated that their ancestors were called Ostyaks [Ramazanova D.B., 1983, 145]. Also interesting is the fact that the ancient settlement centers of Perm Tatars, later becoming district centers, were called Os and Kungur, these names coincide with ethnonim As and Kungur (i.e. Kangyr – Pechenegs).

Thus, the word As with all its phonetical variations in the designation of the Türkic-speaking peoples was applied very widely, and in parallel with a word er (ir-ar). Apparently, in antiquity the Western peoples also quite actively used the ethnonim As as the name of Eastern peoples. So, in the Scandinavian mythology Asses was the name for the main group of gods, and at the same time it was stated that Asses came from Asia, hinting of the identity of the words Asses and Asia [Myths of the peoples of the world, 1980, 120].

There is one curious stroke in the Iranists’ description of the Alanian history. After deportation of Karachais and Balkars from Caucasus, the basically Türkic Nartovian epos that become common for them during the long centuries of Karachais-Balkars coexistence with Ossetians, was declared to be solely Ossetian, and on this ground the Ossetians were identified with Alans. Actually, here again the door opens very simply: Balkars and Karachais call themselves Alans from the most ancient times until present, and this epos first of all tells about Alans-Türks (i.e. Karachais-Balkars), and in the long years of joint life the Ossetians acquired the Nartovian epos.

§ 6. Close interaction of Alans with Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. Tracing the Alanian history, it is not difficult to notice that they cooperated most closely with Türks, at first with Sarmatians and Sarmatian people, Roxolans (in Türkish - Uraksy Alans, ‘Alans-farmers’), Siraks (i.e. Sary-ak people ‘white-yellow’, ancestors of Cumans), Aorses (Aor-Awar-Avars, -os is a Greek ending), Yazygs (Türks - Uzes). All historians admit the close link of Alans with these people, only in the definition of ethnolinguistic classification of these peoples do the opinions differ. Iranists classify them as Iranian speaking, Türkologists – as Türkic speaking, as supported by numerous historical facts.

Prior to sorting out the Alanian-Hunnish links, one should visualize Huns. The official historical science postulates that Huns, first mentioned in the Chinese sources, sometime in the II c. migrated from Central Asia to Urals, and from there in 70ties of the 4 c. poured into the Eastern Europe, thus initiating, supposably, the so-called The Great Migration of Peoples; allegedly Huns were the first Türks appearing in Europe; on the way to Europe they would have subdued Alans in the Northern Caucasus, and, led by the leader Balamber, crossed river Don, defeated Goths, Ostgoths, and Vestgoths, who infiltrated the Northern Pontic, and expelled Vestgoths to Thracia; supposedly crossing through Caucasus, they devastated Syria and Cappadocia, settled in Pannonia, and kept attacking the Eastern Roman empire. In 451 under Attila they invaded Gaul, but on Katalun fields Romans, Vestgoths, and Franks defeated them. After the death of Attila (453.) there were conflicts among Huns, and the German tribes devastated them in Pannonia. The Hunnish union broke up, and they left to Northern Pontic. Gradually, Huns disappeared as people, though their name still lingered for a long time as a common name for Northern Pontic nomadic pastoralists [Gumilev L.N. Huns]

Such an unreal explanation of the history by L.N.Gumilev raises questions: whether could nomads, having forded Volga, defeat strong Alans, Goths, Syrians, Anatolians (in Cappadocia), population of Pannonia, Gaul, Northern Italy? Certainly, this is unreal. How could L.N.Gumilev determine that Huns disappeared, while their ethnonim continued to last as a common name of the Pontic nomads? How he could know that ethnonim Huns for long time designated not Huns, but others? Whom? Why the advancing Romans, and together with them other peoples (more correctly, armies and colonists), did not constitute the Great Migration of Peoples, while creating a huge Roman empire, but the movement from the periphery to the central regions of the Roman empire of other peoples (liberation army, avenging colonists) is called a Great Migration of Peoples? Why Türks, at first as Huns, and then under the names of Avars, Türks, Khazars, Cumans, and Kipchaks constantly migrated from Asia to Europe? Where would they disappear there? How did they procreate so quickly in Asia? Etc. Trying to answer these questions makes it clear that the traditional presentation of Türks’ history is fashioned tendentiously, irrespectively of the real historical conditions.

Summarizing impartially all historical data based on real historical grounds, it is not difficult to suggest that Huns (Sen or Hen) at first were an undistinguished Türkic people among Türkic Scythians and Sarmatians. They started making themselves known in the 1 c. AD. The Greek historians, marking their presence in Europe, did not say a word about their arrival from Asia.

Thus, Dionysus (the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd c.) notes that on the Northwestern side of the Caspian sea live Scythians, Uns, Caspians, Albanians, and Kaduses... [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 186]. As we were proving more than once, Scythians were basically Türkic speaking (see ETHNIC ROOTS OF THE TATAR PEOPLE, § 3), Uns are Huns, with sound h dropped, Caspians also are Türkic ‘people of rocks’ (kas ‘rock’, pi~bi~bai ‘rich owner’), Albanians are Alans, Kaduses are Türkic Uzes~Uses among kad ‘rocks’.

Ptolemy (2 c. AD; B.3 Ch.5 – Translator’s note) writes that in European Sarmatia ‘below Agathyrsi (i.e. Akatsirs~agach ers ‘forest people’– M.Z.) live Savari (Türkic Suvars - M.Z.), between Basternae and Rhoxolani (Uraksy Alans, i.e. ‘Alans-farmers’ - M.Z.) live Huns [Latyshev V.V., 1883, 231-232].

Philostorgy, living in the end of the 4 c. (i.e., when, in the opinion of certain scientists, Huns moved to Eastern Europe), describing Huns, does not say a single word of their arrival from Asia, and writes: ‘These Uns are probably the people which ancients named Nevrs; they lived at Ripean mountains (Don Ridge S. of Donets river, Mid-Europian Uplands N. of it - Translator’s note), from which come the waters of Tanaid’ [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 741].

Zosim (2nd half of the 5c.) suggests that Huns are Royal Scythians [Ibis, 800]. The impartial analysis of the ethnographic data provides a basis to state that Royal Scythians were ancestors of Türkic peoples [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].

Thus, among peoples named Scythians and Sarmatians, at the beginning of our era, the Huns make themselves known; in the Assirian and other Eastern sources they were mentioned among the people living in the 3rd millennium BC. In the 4 c. in a fight for a domination in Northern Caucasus they defeated the Alanian power, and together with them revolted against colonial policy of the Roman empire, at first in Cappadocia, then in the western part of the empire, where have appeared new Gothic colonizers. Naturally, neither Huns, nor Alans, did not move to the West as a people, as it is imagined by the supporters of the ‘Great Migration Of Peoples’, it was the Hunnish-Alanian army that penetrated deep into the West. The main body of the Hunnish and Alanian peoples remained in the same places of habitation.

In the end of the 4 c. Huns, together with Alans, fell on Goths, who wanted to colonize the Northern Pontic. The main historian of Huns and Alans of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus, frequently equated them, for they were ethnically very close. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus not only emphasized that precisely the assistance of Alans helped Huns, but also quite often called attackers Alans’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 113].

After the death of Attila (453) the Hunnish union gradually disintegrated, and Huns as a ruling power do not appear any more, they fused with Türkic Alans and Khazars, while keeping their ethnonim Hun (Sen).

In the Gaul the Alans entered into a close contact with Vandals (Eastern Germans), together they devastated Gaul, and in the 409 resettled in Spain, where Alans received the middle part of Lusitania (later - Portugal) and Cartagena. However, in the 416 Vestgoths entered Spain and defeated Alans. In May of the 429 the Vandal King Geizerix together with subordinated Alans went to Africa, and, defeating the Roman armies, created a new Vandal and Alan state. As the result the Alanian troops dissolved among Vandals and local population. But in the Northern Pontic and in the Caucasus the Huns and Alans continued to cooperate closely.

Following disintegration of the Hunnish empire, in the decentralized period, various tribes and peoples tried to become the ruling group, therefore in the Byzantian sources frequently appear ethnonims: Akatsirs, Barsils, Saragurs, Savirs, Avars, Utigurs, Kutigurs, Bolgars, Khazars. All these ethnonims belong to Türkic populations. Barsils are the inhabitants of Berselia (Berzilia), which in many sources is considered as the country of Alans. Here is an obvious identification of Alans with Barsils~Bersuls, considered related to Khazars [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 117]. More than that, from Berzilia also came the Khazars. So, Theophan in 679-680 writes: ‘From the depths of Berzilia, the first Sarmatia, came the great people Khazars and began to dominate all land on that side down to the Pontic Sea’ [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 61].

From the 5 c. among Caucasian Alans, i.e. numerous Türkic peoples, other tribes also began to make themselves known: Khazars, Bulgars, Kipchaks etc. After the brilliant performance of the Türkic peoples, led by the Huns, against the colonial policy of Goths and Romans, the Huns ceased to be ruling, their place took Alans and Khazars, who competed on the political arena up to the 10 c. ‘From the 5 c. the push of Khazar Khaganate grows, establishing control over Alans ‘ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118]. In the 8 c., at the time of the Alanian expansion, the Alans once again proved that they supported Khazars. ‘The 10 c. marks a turn. Now the Khazars had to recognize their former vassals with the following words: ‘Alanian Kingdom is stronger and tougher than all other peoples around us’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118-119].

In the 11 c. in the Northern Caucasus others nations begin to raise – Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets), who at once joined with Alans, and established peaceful and loving relations [Djanashvili M., 1897, 36]. In this area Alans, together with Kipchaks, adopted Christianity.

In the 1222 Alans and Kipchaks come out together against Mongolo-Tatars. Seeing that they together represent an undefeatable force, Mongolo-Tatars used a trick. ‘Seeing danger, the leader of Chengizkanids (Subetai - Translator’s note)... sent gifts to Kipchaks and ordered to tell them, that they, being the same kin as the Mongols, should not rise against the brothers and be friends with Alans, who are entirely of another lineage’ [Karamzin N.M., 1988, 142]. Here Mongolo-Tatars figured, apparently, that their army at this time consisted primarily of the Kipchak Türks of the Central Asia, therefore they addressed Kipchaks as kins, and Alans of Caucasus were partially Kipchaks (ancestors of Karachai-Balkars), and partially Oguzes (ancestors of Azerbaidjans - inhabitants of Caucasian Albania - Alania).

It is known that soon all Kipchak steppes passed into the hands of Mongolo-Tatars. The Volga Bulgaria, the main component of whose population was referred to as Yasses, subordinated to Mongolo-Tatars in 1236, and Alans - Yasses of Northern Caucasus - in 1238.

Thus, Alans made their celebrated military and political route hand-to-hand with their Türkic kins: Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. From the 13 c. Alans-Yasses cease to be ruling among the other Türkic people. But it does not mean at all that they physically disappeared, they lived among others Türkic people and gradually entered into their ethnicity, accepting their ethnonim. Such a strong, scattered along all Eurasia people as Alans-Yasses, cannot be equated to Iranian speaking Ossetians by a single trait, and could not be suddenly reduced ‘by a miracle’ to the strictures of the Caucasus Ossetians.

If the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were Ossetian speaking, all Eurasia should have Ossetian toponyms. They do not exist, unless artificially (quasi-scientifically) produced. Thus, in all their attributes the Alans were Türkic, and took part in the formation of many Türkic peoples.

LITERATURE

Abaev V.I. Ossetian language and folklore. Vol.1. M. L.1949.

Ammianus Marcellinus. History. Kiev. 1908. Issue3.

Bartold V.V. Kirghizes. A historical sketch // Works Vol. II, Part I. M., 1963.

Bartold V.V. History of Türkish-Mongolian peoples // Works Vol.II, Part I, M., 1968.

Bartold V.V. Introduction to the edition ‘Khudud Al-Alm’ // Works Vol.VIII. M., 1973.

Bartold V.V. Geography of Ibn Said // Works Vol.VIII. M., 1973.

Vinogradov V.B. Alans in Europe // Questions of history. 1974. No 8.

Gumilev L.N. Huns // BSE. 3rd edition. Vol. 7.

Djanashvili M. Chronicles of the Georgian annals about Northern Caucasus // Collection for the description of Caucasian places and tribes. Tiflis, 1897. Issue. 22.

Elnitskiy L.A. Scythia of the Eurasian steppes. Historical Archeological Notes. Novosibirsk, 1977.

Zakiev M.Z. Problems of language and origin of Tatars. Kazan, 1986.

Karalkin P.I... About most ancient milking of cattle // Ethnography of the peoples of Altai and Western Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1978.

Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state. M., 1988.

Kafoev A.J. Adygian monuments. Nalchik, 1963.

Klyashtornyi S.G.,. Ancient Türkic Runic monuments. M., 1964.

Kononov A.N. A family tree of Türkmen. M. L.1958.

Kuznetsov V.A. Alans // BSE. 3rd Edition. Vol. 1.

Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M. About the origin of Türkic peoples. Cherkessk, 1993.

Latyshev C. C. Records of the ancient writers about Scythia and Caucasus. SPb., 1893. Vol.1.

Mamedova Farida. To a question about Albanian (Caucasian) ethnos // News AS Azerb. SSR. A series of history, philosophy and law. Baku, 1989. No 3.

Meschersky N.A. A history of Judean war by Joseph Flavius in ancient Russian translation M. L.1958.

Miziev I.M. Close to history. Nalchik, 1990.

Miziev I.M. Steps to sources of an ethnic history of Central Caucasus. Nalchik, 1986.

Miller Vs.F. Ancient Ossetian monument from Kuban area // Materials on Archeology of Caucasus. M., 1893 Issue. 3.

Miller Vs. Ossetian etudes. Researches. M., 1887.

Miller Vs. Epigraphical Iranian traces in the south of Russia // Magazine of the ministry national education. 1886. October.

Myths of the peoples of the world: Encyclopedia. M., 1980, Vol.1.

Nemeth. J. The list of words in As language, Hungarian Alans. Ordjonikidze, 1960.

Pogrebova M.N. Monuments of Scythian culture in Transcaucasia // Caucasus and Central Asia in an antiquity and Middle Ages. M., 1981.

Potanin G.N. At Votyaks of Elabujskiy district // News of society Archeology, History and Ethnography at Kazan University. Kazan, 1884. Vol. III, 1880-1882.

Ramazanova D.B. To history of formation of dialect of Perm Tatars // Perm Tatars. Kazan, 1983.

Tatischev V.N. Russian History. M. L.1962. Vol.1.

Fattakhov F.Sh. Zelenchuk epitaph... // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature monuments. Kazan, 1990.

Fattakhov F.Sh. In what language spoke Alans? // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature monuments. Kazan, 1990.

Khabichev M.A. Karachai-Balkars construction of names and words. Cherkessk, 1977.

Chernyshev E.I. Tatar village of second half 16 and 17 cc. // 1961Year-book on an agrarian history of Eastern Europe. Riga, 1963.

Chichurov I.S. The Byzantian historical works. M., 1980.

Shpilevsky S.M. Ancient cities and other Bulgaro-Tatar monuments in Kazan province. Kazan, 1877.

http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 15:32

wonderful website you got that from merced12

http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/tatar/tatar.html = tartarstan website

http://www.turkicworld.org/ = turkish website.

wonderful sources. however, i will reply to that bogus article anyway but it will take some time, hold on.

its funny that you can only find turkic sources. can you find me one western source that says that alans, samartians, and scythians are turkic? all of them say that they are indo iranians.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 16:01
Originally posted by merced12 merced12 wrote:

WHO ARE ALANS?

Mirfatykh Z. ZAKIEV

An article from his articles collection book

TATARS: PROBLEMS of the HISTORY and LANGUAGE

Collection of articles on problems of lingohistory; revival and development of the Tatar nation. Kazan, 1995. Pp.38-57.

first of all, look at what it says on the bottom of this quote:

collection of articles on problems of lingohistory; revival and developement of the Tatar nation...

this article obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is to create a history for the Tatar nation. it says it very clearly right there.  this article is not coming from an unbiased balanced source, but its coming from a tartar turkic person who set off on the goal to create a version of history that will fit tatarstan, much like many turkic nations in central asia have done.

Originally posted by merced12 merced12 wrote:

§ 1. General information. As is known from multiple sources, in the expansive region of Eurasia, namely in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus, in Near East, Middle East, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Southern and Western Siberia lived differently speaking people, called until the 9–8 cc. BC by the Greek, and then by the Roman historians, by a common name Cimmerians, in the 9–3 cc. BC by Scythians (in Russian: Skif, in Western European: Scyth), at the same time they also called them Sauromats, in the 3 cc. BC – 4 cc. AD they also called them Sarmatians. Then into general use came an ethnonim Alan.

In the Indo-European and official Soviet Russian historical sciences all of them are recognized as Iranian speaking, in particular, as the ancestors of Ossetians, not on the basis of a comprehensive study of the linguistic, mythological, ethnological, archeological and historical data, but coming only from isolated linguistic deductions. This implies that the ancestors of Ossetians lived in the expansive region of Eurasia under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans (Asses) during one thousand years BC and a thousand years AD, but in the beginning of the second millennium AD they extraordinarily quickly diminished (or adopted Türkic language) and remained in small numbers only in the Caucasus. Such presentation of the historical process in Eurasia does not bear criticism even based on the following general considerations. The historical process of the development or assimilation of peoples does not support the opinion about Iranian linguality of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans. If in such extensive region of Eurasia, as the Iranists assume, lived Iranian speaking Ossetians during a period of not less than two thousand years, then, on one hand, at the ‘arrival’ of Huns they would not have suddenly disappeared without a trace, and would not immediately turned into Türks, and on another hand the Türks, if they did not live earlier in these regions, could not have created instantaneously in the 6 cc. the Great Türkic Kaganate on the most expansive territory from the coast of Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic sea.

We should also keep in mind that the depiction of that ancient population as Iranian speaking contradicts the information of the ancient historians about multilingualism of Scythians and Sarmatians, and is not supported by the toponymical data of the above named extensive region.

Besides, if Scythians and Sarmatians were Iranian speaking, the ancient Assirian, Greek, Roman, Chinese historians could not fail to notice it, they knew well both Iranians – Persians, and the Scythians – Sarmatians, i.e. describing these peoples they would have surely noted somehow the similarity or affinity of the Persian and ‘Scythian’ languages. But we do not find even a hint of this from the ancient writers. At the same time there are many cases of identification of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans with various Türkic speaking peoples.

Lastly, if in the extensive territories of Eurasia under a common name Scythians and Sarmatians lived only Iranian speaking peoples, from where would then suddenly appear Slavic, Türkic, and Finno-Ugrian peoples. Only an ironical question is left to be asked: maybe they ‘fell from sky’?!

Thus, even the general review of the results of the Scythian and Sarmatian studies of Iranists shows that in tendentiousness they crossed the limits of unrealistic, unprovable fantasy and concoction.

On the other hand, even before, and after the emergence of the Scytho-Iranian concept, many scientists were proving and confirming the Türkic-speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans, recognizing the presence among them of Slavic, and Finno-Ugrian, and Mongolian, and also, in the smallest degree, of the Iranian peoples. In the opinion of this group of scientists, even long before AD on the extensive territories of Eurasia, under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans (Asses), lived the ancestors of Türkic peoples. They continued and continue to live now in the same regions, under various ethnonims, since the middle of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. In fact, starting in the 11 c., from the beginning of the Crusader campaigns, the settlement areas of the Türks gradually narrowed.

But, despite of the presence of the two different prevailing points of view, the (Russian - Translator’s note.) official historical science by all possible and impossible rationales tries to prove the truthfulness of the Scythian- Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian theory. Here is what V.A. Kuznetsov writes in BSE (Big Soviet Encyclopedia): ‘Alans (Lat. Alan), self-name - Irons, in the Byzantian sources - Alans, in Georgian - Osses, in Russian - Yasses, numerous Iranian speaking tribes, separated in the last century BC from the semi-nomadic Sarmatian population of Nothern Caspian, Don and Pre-Caucasus area, and settled in the I c. AD (per writings of Roman and Byzantian authors) in Meotia and N.Caucasus, from where they were making devastating incursions into Crimea, Meotia and N.Caucasus, Asia Minor, Midia. The basis of the Alan economy of that time was cattle breeding...’

Further, the author describes that in the Central N.Caucasus they formed an association, which was referred to as Alania. In the 8-9 cc. it was included in the Khazar Khaganate. On the turn of 9-10 cc. Alans form an early feudal state. In the 10 c. Alans play a significant role in Khazaria’s external connections with Byzantium, whence Christianity infiltrate to Alania.

Here V.A. Kuznetsov’s information about Alans is stated basically adequately, except that the first part of the first sentence does not correspond to reality at all: it is clear that Alans (Asses) never called themselves Irons, Irons is a self-name of Ossetians only. Hence, V.A. Kuznetsov begins the statement with a falsification, with a priory identification of Alans as Ossetians.

this article is suggesting that turkic peoples origionated in eurasia. THIS IS THE FIRST BIG MISTAKE. turkic peoples did not origionate form eurasia, they origionated in teh steppes of central asia.

eurasia is the term used for the land mass that transitions from europe to asia, meaning the western part of russia, the caucasus and , turkey, lebanon, syria, etc...

and the chinese called the scythians "sai" and the persians called them "saka".  this article assumes that the name of this group of poeple is scythian, not taking into cconsideration that scythian is only the greek word for the saka.

teh auther fails to mention that point.

also, the author says that no historians of the time recorded any similarities between iranic tribes and the scythians. that is wrong, herodotus noted that the scythians were a tribe similar to that of persians who seperated when they refused to help the persians conquer babylonia.

also, herodotus writes down some of their words, which are consist with words used by the iranic languages of the time. the scythians had no writing system at the time and herodotus's records are the only known existance of scythian language in the world from that time period.

Originally posted by merced12 merced12 wrote:

§ 2. On what basis was originally built the opinion about Ossetian speaking of Alans (Asses)? Here we meet with a few ‘incontestable’ facts ‘proving’ the Ossetian linguality of Alans.

It is known that the ancient historians repeatedly noted a complete similarity in language and dress of Alans and Scythians. Besides, per ancients’ message, Alans are one of Sarmatian peoples. As Iranists classify the Scythians and Sarmatians as Ossetian speaking, so, in their opinion, the Alans should certainly be recognized as Ossetian speaking.

It is known that the theory about Iranian (or Ossetian) speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans was not developed in objective research, and was created purposefully by tendentious etymologization of Scythian and Sarmatian words, through application of exclusively Indo-Iranian languages. Iranists tenaciously did not admit any other languages to the etymology of these words, not Türkic, or Slavic, or Finno-Ugrian, or Mongolian, whose carriers did not ‘fall from the sky’, but lived in these territories for centuries.

We and many other scientists more than once have shown that Scytho-Sarmatian key words are better etymologized with the help of Turkic languages. The existing etymologies of these words on the basis of the Iranian languages are not convincing, do not have an elementary system, and certainly Scytho-Sarmatian words do not have any Iranian etymology. We list below some key Scythian- Sarmatian words for illustration.

It is known that the name Scythians for the first time shows up in the Assirian documents of the middle of the 7 c. BC. The country of Scythians is called Ishkuza, Scythian kings were Ishpakai and Partatua [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 44-48].

The word Ishkuza on the Iranian basis has not been explained, but in Türkic it has possible etymologies:

1) Ishke~Echke ‘internal’; Uz - Türkic ethnonim of Oguz part of Türks (oguz~ok-uz ‘white, noble Uzes’);

2) Ishke~Eske, the first part from a word Scyth~ Scyth ~ ~Eske-de; the word Eske in the pure state, i.e. without an affix, is a Türkic ethnonim. The word Scyth (Eske-le) means ‘the people mixed with the people ‘Eske’. The word Eshkuza~ Eske-Uz is used as Uz, i.e. related to the people ‘Eske’; it is the name of the people and of the country;

3) Ishkuza consists of parts Ish-Oguz, where Ish is a variation of a word As, the ancient name of the Türks, Oguz consists of words ak and uz, and means ‘white, noble Uzes’, in turn, Uz also ascends to ethnonim As; Oguz is an ethnonim of a part of the Türks.

Abaev and Fasmer explained Ishpakai as Iranian word aspa ‘Horse’. Suggesting that the name of the Scythian prince is taken from the name of his people, in words Ishkuza and Ishpakai the initial Ish is a part of the same word. Then it is possible to suggest that in a word Ishpakai~ Ishbaga the part ish is ‘equal, friend’ + baga ‘brings up (baga has also the meanings 'he/she watches, looks, takes care of smb. – Edit.)’; ish baga ‘ finds himself equal, friends’.

Partatua has no Iranian etymology, in Türkic partatua~bardy-tua~bar-ly-tua is ‘born for creation of property, wealth’.

The key words, saved in the Greek sources, are first of all the names of Scythians’ ancestors: Targitai, Lipoksai, Arpoksai, Kolaksai; Scythian ethnonims: Sak, Scyth, Agathir (Agafirs), Gelon, Scolot, Sarmat; Scythian words that were etymologized by Herodotus himself: eorpata, enareis, arimasps; And also the names of Scythian gods: Tabiti, Papai, Ani etc. All these words are etymologized on the basis of Türkic language [see Ethnic Roots Of The Tatar People § 3].

By their ethnological features the Scythians and Sarmatians, certainly, are ancient Türkic people. Specifically, it is the ethnological affinity of Scythians and Türks that deters the advocates of the Scythian-Ossetian theory from research of Scythian ethnological problems. As to the Scytho-Turkic ethnological parallels, they were already noted by the first, and then by the subsequent Scythologists, who came to a conclusion that ‘the vestiges of Scythian culture were perpetuated and persistently preserved in the culture of Türkic-Mongolian (and in an a smaller measure in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples’ [Elnitskiy L.A., 1977, 243]. P.I.Karalkin also came to a conclusion that imperial Scythians were ancestors of the Türkic speaking peoples [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].

Ethnological features of Scythians and Sarmatians are studied in detail in the book of I.M.Miziev ‘History beside’. It lists 15 Scythian-Türkic (in a wider sense – Altaic) ethological parallels, and concludes that ‘all noted characteristics of the Scythian-Altai parallels find the nearest analogies, nearly without exception, in the culture and life of the many medieval pastoralists of the Eurasian steppes: Huns, Kipchaks etc., and almost completely continue in the traditional culture of the Türkic -Mongolian peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Volga basin, Caucasus and Altai’ [Miziev I.M., 1990,].

Thus, the message of the ancients about the similarity of the languages of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans is not a basis at all for identification of Alans as Iranian speaking. The results of the research of many scientists show that Alans, as well as their ancestors, Sarmatians and Scythians, were mainly Türkic speaking, i.e. ancestors of the Türks.

this article again does not mention the heavy iranic lingual and cultural influence in the region and on the turkic tribes. and also, it does not mention the fact that scythian writing after they had adopted a writing system also resembles an iranic language.

if anyone tries hard enough they can come up with what they want to believe.

there are also turk historians who claim the etruscans to be turkic based on "linguistic" and "cultural" evidence.

when things are being misconstrewed in every way possible, it is very possible to come up with the solution you want.

Originally posted by merced12 merced12 wrote:

§ 3. What are the other reasons to recognize Alans (Asses) as Türkic speaking? A 1949 issue of V.I.Abaev monograph ‘Ossetian Language And Folklore’ confirms the hypothesis about Iranian speaking of Alans, in addition to the Scytho-Ossetian etymology, by: 1) text of a Zelenchuk epitaph, carved in the 11 c., and 2) phrases in Alanian language given by the Byzantian writer Ioan Tsets (1110 - 1180).

Zelenchuk epigraphic, written in Greek letters, for the first time was deciphered by Vs.F.Miller in the end of the 19 c., on the basis of Ossetian language. His translation reads: ‘Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar Bakatai son Anban Anbalan son of adolescent monument (?) (Adolescent Ira) (?)’. This translation by Vs.F.Miller is considered quite satisfactory, he makes only one slightly critical note: ‘ Though name Anbalan we cannot find at Ossetians, it sounds quite Ossetian ‘ [Miller Vs.F., 1893, 115]. V.I.Abaev makes an insignificant change in the text of translation ’Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar, Bakatar son Anbalan, Anbalan son Lag – their monument ‘ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 262].

Vs.F.Miller added 8 additional letters to the text in the very beginning of the reading of the Zelenchuk inscription, without which he would not find any Ossetian words whatsoever [Kafoev A.J., 1963, 13]. Following him, all supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, reading the Zelenchuk inscription, always resorted to various manipulations with the letters and words of the inscription [Miziev I.M., 1986, 111-116]. It should be noted that even after the deliberate modifications, the text of the Zelenchuk inscription in Ossetian language remains only a senseless set of personal names and nothing more, but in Karachaevo-Balkarian language it is read precisely and clearly. The words there, certainly, are Türkic. For example, yurt is ‘native land’, Yabgu ‘governor’, yiyip ‘gathered’, ti ‘speak’, zyl ‘year ‘, itiner ‘aspire’, bülünep – ‘separated’, etc. [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993].

In 1990 F.Sh.Fattakhov, having made a critical analysis of the available interpretations of Zelenchuk epitaph, came to a conclusion that the inscription is freely read on the basis of Türkic language. The translation from Türkic language says: ‘Jesus Christ. Name Nicola. If had grown, would not be better to patronize leading yurt. From yurt of Tarbakatai-Alan the child should be made a possessing Khan. Year of Horse’ [Fattakhov F.Sh., 1990, 43-55]. Thus, Alanian epigraphic, found in the land of Karachais and written in the 11 c., is more accurately deciphered through the language of the Karachais ancestors. Hence, Zelenchuk epigraphic cannot serve as a proof of the Iranian speaking of Alans. As to the Alanian phrase of the Byzantian writer Ioan Tsets (1110-1180), kept in the Vatican library in Rome, its deciphering was attempted with the help of the Ossetian language, with various manipulations of the text: ‘corrected’, and rearranged, and even added letters. In the translation of V.I.Abaev the record of Ioan Tsets sounds thus: ‘Good day, my Master, Queen, where from came you? Aren’t you ashamed, my Lady?’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 245]. A question rises immediately, is such reference to a Lady, a Queen, possible? Apparently, not. The Tsets phrase has such common Türkic words as khos~khosh ‘good, bye’, khotn ‘madam’, kordin ‘saw’, kaitarif ‘returned ‘, oüngnge - the idiom meaning in Balkarian ‘how could it be?’ [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 102-103].

The Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets was also deciphered by F.Sh.Fattakhov, it was shown that it is a Türkic text: ‘Tabagach – mes ele kany kerdets [...] yurnetsen kinya~e mes ele. Kaiter ony [- -] eige’ or ‘Pot hook - copper handle where did you see (?) [...] Should send a smaller (a small) handle. Bring it [- -] home’. [Fattakhov F., 1992].

Thus, Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets unequivocally speaks about Türkic linguality of Alans.

In the opinion of supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, there is another incontestable proof of the Ossetian speaking of Alans-Asses, it is the book of the Hungarian scientist Y.Nemeth ‘List of words in language of Yasses, Hungarian Alans’, published in German in Berlin in 1959, translated to Russian by V.I.Abaev and published as a separate book in 1960 in Ordjonikidze.

The entire logic of this book is built on unconditional a priory recognition of the Ossetian speaking of Asses-Alans. Because the author Y.Nemeth presents Asses-Alans as obligatorily Ossetian speaking, he attributes the list of words with Ossetian lexical units, found accidentally in 1957 in the State Archive, to the Hungarian Asses (Yasses). All the dictionary transcription work and etymologization of its words is done with a passionate aspiration to certainly find in the list Ossetian words, to attribute them to Asses (Yasses), and forcibly prove them Ossetian speaking. Therefore the dictionary awaits impartial researchers. This is a task of the future, but here it is not our concern. The question is: whether it is possible to recognize Hungarian Yasses as Ossetian speaking even with this book of Y.Nemeth, and from this whether Y.Nemeth acted correctly in attributing the list of words with expected Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Yasses?

Let’s listen to the author. He writes: “1. Until the 19 c. Yasses in Hungary form one administrative unit with Cumans (Cumans, Russ. Polovets); both peoples usually carry a common name Yazs-Kunok, i.e. ‘Yasses-Cumans’. Explanation for this is possible only as a result of old close links between two peoples” [Nemeth Y., 1960, 4]. This message of the author leads to a thought that Yasses and Cumans among Hungarians make basically a monolingual community, because they settled together, on the same territory, and carry a common ethnonim Yasses-Cumans. Let’s imagine, if Cumans and Yasses spoke unlike languages, if they came to Hungary at different times, would they settled together and would they carry a common ethnonim? Probably, not.

Further, Y.Nemeth continues: ‘Cumans came to Hungary in 1239, escaping from the invasion of the Mongols. It is therefore possible to think that Alans appeared in Hungary mainly in conjunction with the Cuman union. In its favor also speaks the coexistence of Cumans and Alans in the North Pontic, in the Caucasus and in Moldova’ [Ibis, 4]. We already know that in these regions Alans were Türkic speaking and consequently lived together with Cumans; moreover, Balkars and Karachais still call themselves Alans, and Ossetians call Balkars Assiyas. We know well that Volga Bulgars in another way are called Yasses. The Hungarian scientist Erney informs that after a victory of Svyatoslav over Bulgars in 969 the Muslims resettled from Bulgar to Hungary, and they were called Yasses [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 105].

Let’s continue the message of Y.Nemeth. ‘There are seven districts in Hungary with a name Eszlar, Oszlar (from Aslar - ‘Asses’). It is believed that in these names is hidden the name Yasses: As is the Türkic name of Alans, and -lar is Türkic plural suffix; it follows that Cumans called Yasses Aslar. However it should be noticed that in comitate Somogy (south of lake Platten) the name Eszlar is witnessed in the 1229, i.e. before the coming of Cumans, and, in addition, it was in the form Azalar’ [Nemeth Y., 1960, 4]. Nothing is left to assumption here, it is clear that the discourse is about Asses, that they call themselves Aslar in Türkic. Hence, they surely spoke Türkic, instead of Ossetian. Y.Nemeth himself writes that the plural affix -lar is not the result of the Türkic-Cuman language influence. We do not know cases when any people apply their own ethnonim with plural affix from another language.

Further, what says the following message of Y.Nemeth: ‘Anywhere, where there are Cuman populations, we meet Yass settlements’ [5]. If Cumans and Yasses were speaking unlike languages, would they settle adjacently everywhere?

Surprisingly, after these assertions, which should tip Y.Nemeth to the opinion of the ethnical and linguistical similarity or affinity of Cumans and Yasses, the author comes to a conclusion that ‘Cumans and Yasses are of different origin. Cumans are a large Türkic people... and Yasses are people of Iranian origin, branch of Alans, related to Ossetians’ [6].

The list came to storage from the archive of Batiani family. ‘Date of January 12, 1422. Contents: judicial case of the widow of George Batiani against Ioan and Stephan Safar from Chev’ [7]. Except for a notation that settlement Chev is located in the vicinity of Yass settlement, there is no basis for the assumption that this list of words belongs to Yasses, short of a deep belief by Y.Nemeth himself that list of supposedly Iranian with Ossetian tilt words should be attributed to Alan-Yass language. The surname Batiani says that he, apparently, was of Caucasus-Ossetian origin, therefore the list of words has many Ossetian words. At the same time the list has a lot of Türkic words. I.M.Miziev analyzed the list, found in Hungary, from that point of view [Miziev I.M., 1986, 117-118].

Thus, the postulation of Y.Nemeth that the list, containing Ossetian words, belongs to Yasses -Alans is more than disputable. Even more, the list of words should now be impartially deciphered anew, instead of a prejudiced aspiration to find Ossetian words there.

§ 4. With what peoples their contemporaries identified Alans? It is a very important question. One thing is the opinion of the historians contemporary with Alans, and absolutely different are the attempts of modern scientists to explain history in a certain way according to their agenda.

Reviewing the so-called Scytho-Sarmatian extensive territory, we see that the preceding peoples are frequently identified with the subsequent peoples. Thus, in Assirian sources of 7 c. BC the Cimmerians are identified with Scythians, but the modern historians interpret it as if the ancient historians confused them by mistake. For example, M.N.Pogrebova, speaking about it, writes: ‘It is possible, Assyrians also confused them.’ [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 48]. Further, in later sources the Scythians are identified with Sarmatians; Sarmatians - with Alans; Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans - with Huns; Alans, Huns - with Türks (i.e. with Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Kipchaks, Oguzes) etc.

Let’s present some testimonials about Alans. Roman historian of the 4 c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well acquainted with Alans, and who left the most complete description of them, wrote, that Alans ‘in everything are similar to Huns, but are a little bit softer in customs and way of life’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242]. The translator of the ‘History of Judean war by Josephus Flavius’ (written in 70 AD) to Old Russian language the ethnonim Alans translates by a word Yass and, without a shadow of doubt, asserts that the ‘language of Yasses is known as born from the Pecheneg kin’ [Meschersky N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Miller also gives this citation, where Alans-Yasses are identified with Pechenegs-Türks, and he points out that the interpreter has replaced Scythians with Pechenegs, and Alans with Yasses [Miller Vs., 1887, 40]. It is clear that this remark does not help Vs. Miller at all to identify Alans with Ossetians, on the contrary, it says that in the 11 c. the interpreter realized very well that Pechenegs are descendents of Scythians, and that Alans are Yasses.

Besides; it is necessary to remember that the ancient historians always described Alans next to Aorses (i.e. Avars), Huns, Khazars, Sabirs, Bulgars, i.e. with Türkic speaking peoples.

Alans left a notable trace in the Middle Volga basin; here again they were identified with Türks, in particular, with Khazars. Thus, existing toponyms in this region ascend to ethnonim Alan. Udmurts have legends about ancient populations. They call a mythological hero Alan-Gasar (Alan-Khazar) and everything that was attributed to him was related to the Nugai people, i.e. Tatars, who in another way were called also Kuruk (Ku-iirk, where, ku ‘white-faced’, iirk - a synonym of the ethnonim Biger ‘the owner, rich’ – M.Z.) [Potanin G.N., 1884, 192]. Here is obvious identification of Alans with Nugais-Tatars.

In the (Russian - Translator’s note.) official historical science the cases of identification of Scythians-Alans-Huns-Khazars-Türks are usually explained by the fact that ancient historians, apparently, frequently confused these peoples. Actually, they could not be confused; for they talked of events they witnessed themselves. They did not have political directives to confuse consciously. In our deep belief, ancients mixed up nothing, but the modern historians, acting from their biases or political directives, want to interpret the ancient sources in their own way and they start ‘correcting’ them. Examining the messages of the ancients carefully and impartially, it becomes incontestably clear that in the so-called Scythian-Sarmatian regions, both in antiquity, and in the Middle Ages, lived basically the same peoples. Essentially the same peoples occupy these territories now.

It is impossible not to notice that the supporters of Alano-Ossetian theory recognize as correct only that part of the statements of the ancients, which recorded the linkage of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans, but to the other part of the message, about the linkage of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Huns-Türks-Khazars-Bulgars etc. they thoroughly ignore. Hence, they approach the study of ancient sources tendentiously and nonsystematically. That is first. Secondly, as we saw above, their identification of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans is not the proof of the Ossetian-speaking of Alans, for Scythians and Sarmatians were not Ossetian-speaking.

One more fact deserves attention. How some modern historians visualize ethnic processes in Eastern Europe?

They believe that several waves of new peoples continuously came from Asia to Eastern Europe: some of them in due course were dissolved in Europe, where the conditions of life were better. And in Asia, where the conditions of life were worse than in Europe, the new peoples quickly multiplied while closely observing the Europe: as soon as some ethnicities began to disappear there, they appeared to rush to Europe. Periodically this process was repeated. Thus, unveiled by the supporters of the official historical sciences, Cimmerians have disappeared – and appeared Scythians or, the opposite, appeared from Asia Scythians - disappeared Cimmerians; appeared Sarmatians, disappeared Scythians; among Sarmatians procreated Alans, then appeared Huns (would be first Türks), gradually disappeared Alans; appeared Avars (Aores -Aorses), disappeared Huns; appeared Türks, disappeared Avars; appeared Bolgars, disappeared Khazars; then gradually from Asia to Europe came Pechenegs, Kipchaks, Tataro-Mongols, after which the arrival of Türks from Asia to Europe stopped. For a rationally thinking scientist, such process of constant re-supply of the population of Europe due to the arrival of ‘nomads’ from Asia can not seem plausibly reflect the reality.

Why the ancient historians frequently identified (not confused!) the previous with the subsequent? The answer is clear: in such extensive territories the people basically did not change, changed only the ethnonim. The name of the group that occupied a ruling position became a common ethnonim of the whole people or even of the whole large territory subordinated to that group. And in various periods of history various groups were ruling. Therefore the same people with the flow of time had changing ethnonims. Thus, in the extensive territories of Scythians and Sarmatians in antiquity lived the ancestors of those peoples that basically occupy these territories today. From this point of view, in Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans we first of all should search for Türks, Slavs and Finno-Ugrians, instead of Iranian lingual Ossetians, who left intermittent traces only in the Caucasian region. The cases of identification of Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans with Türkic people reach up to the present. For example, as in antiquity, so also now the Türkic ‘Balkars and Karachais call themselves by an ethnonim Alans, as, for example, Adygeys... call themselves Adyga, the Georgians - Sakartvelo, Ossetians - Iron, Yakuts - Sakha etc. Mengrels call Karachais Alans; Ossetians call Balkars Asses’ [Khabichev M.A., 1977, 75]. It is a fact, impossible to hide from. But one of the founders of the Sarmato-Scytho-Ossetian theory Vs. Miller falsifies it as follows. Assuming that Balkars and Karachais should certainly be immigrants, and the Ossetians are locals, he writes: ‘Balkars (an immigrant tribe), purged Ossetians from these places, they (i.e. Ossetians) call them Asses (Asiag is Balkarian, Asi is the country they occupied), the ancient name is preserved in the annals in a form Yasses. However, there is no doubt, that not Balkars, who came to the present place rather late, but Ossetians were Yasses of our annals; but the name was attached to the district and has remained, despite of the change in the population. Chechen is called in Ossetian Ttsetsenag, Ingush – Mäkäl, Nogai - Nogayag’ [Miller Vs., 1886, 7]. There is a question, why Ossetians name correctly both Chechens, and Ingushes, and Nogais, making a mistake only in relation to Balkars? Deciphering the mysterious tangle of Vs. Miller, it turns out that Ossetians at first called themselves and their territories Asiag, then, when the Ossetians snoozed, came Balkars and transferred sleeping Ossetians to another territory, taking their former land. The next day the Ossetians woke up and, using the name of the territory, began using their own ethnonim Yasses for Balkars, instead of themselves, as before, and also began to call themselves Ironians, for they did not recall how they were called earlier. It would be clear to every child that in real life this does not happen and cannot happen. This ‘fairy tale’ was necessary for Vs. Miller to prove by any means the equivalency of the historical Asses and Ossetians.

Further, Vs. Miller gives examples from the Caucasus toponymy reminding Ossetian words. Nobody would doubt that among Caucasian toponyms are Ossetian’s, for they lived there, but at the same time there is a lot of Türkic names, experts estimate there are many more of the last. From several toponymic facts and from the fact that instead of themselves Ossetians call Balkars (by ‘mistake’) Asses, which works against the author, Vs. Miller resolves: ‘There is a reason to think that the ancestors of Ossetians were included in the composition of the Caucasian Alans ‘ [Ibis, 15]. Thus, he kept silent the fact that Balkars and Karachais call themselves by ethnonim Alans, and they are called Alans by Mengrels.

Thus, Alans, in the firm opinion of their contemporaries, were Türkic speaking. If they were Ossetian or Iranian speaking, the numerous historians would have mentioned it somewhere.

this author is using more opinion than fact.  and he answers his own questions in this section when he says that the ethnicities of people are often change when the ruling class changes. he asnwers his question as to why the scythians disappeared and the area they lived in became to be more related to turkic.

its the same as anatolia, are we going to start saying that anatolians were origionally turkic too?

Originally posted by merced12 merced12 wrote:

§ 5. Ethnolinguistical nature of Asses -Alans by other data. The name Alans is mentioned for the first time in the sources in the 1c. BC, but the variants of the name As are found much earlier. For example, in the Assirian and other ancient Eastern sources ‘the name Uds is traced from a deep antiquity, namely from the 3 millennium BC, which can be connected with Caspian Uds’ [Elnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. Based on the usual interchange of sounds d-z in Türkic languages it is possible to conclude, that the name Ud is a variant of an ethnonim Uz, which, certainly, meant Türks (compare ashina~asina ‘mother of As’) and means a part of the Türks, i.e. Oguzes (ak~uz ‘white, noble Uzes ‘). The phonetic variants of the ethnonim Uz are well known: Ud, Us, Os, Yos, Yass, Ash, Ish etc.

It remains a puzzle why Asses became referred to as Alans, why the sources known to us identify Asses and Alans. About the etymology of the word Alan there are various points of view, but none of them tries to deduce it from the word Alban. Meanwhile, such attempt could be very fruitful, for Alans lived in Caucasian Albania and it is not known until now, who were these Albans. From the 1 c. BC to 8 c. AD this people is frequently mentioned in many sources, its main population lived in Caucasian Albania, with the territory by the Caspian sea, north of the river Kura. Albania approximately corresponds to Shirvan.

In Scythian and Sarmatian time in this region could have lived one of the ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, called Aluan (Aluank). As notes F.Mamedova, the Albanian self-consciousness of the inhabitants of these places is reflected in their self-name aluank from the 1 c. BC to 8 c. AD, within the limits of all of the Albania, and after the ‘fall of the Albanian Kingdom, as a fragmental phenomenon, both the ethnonim, and the Albanian self-consciousness is traceable in the 9-19 cc. in one part of the country - in Artsakh ‘ [Mamedova Farida, 1989, 109].

By the phonetic laws of the Türkic language the word aluank could have variants Alan, Alban, Alvan. The sound k, apparently, is a part of an affix of belonging -nyky (Aluannyky - ‘the people belonging to Aluan’). Strongly reduced y is almost not heard, therefore it dropped out very quickly, double nn in due course gives one n, thus comes a word aluank , where the sound k is further reduced. As to the sound u, it sounds as w, and w usually sounds as a zero sound, or b, or v. So, from Aluau~Alyuan were formed Alan, Alban, and Alvan. All of them were actively used. Variation Alban in Yakut means ‘resourceful, good looking, beautiful’. If this meaning was used in the word Alan, it proves the message of Ammianus Marcellinus that ‘almost all Alans are tall and have fair hair, beautiful face, eyesight is if not furious, still is fearsome’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, 241].

Thus, Alans in Caucasus, possibly, were originally known under ethnonim Aluan, which then has received the forms Alan, Alban, and Alvan.

Let’s address another ethnonim of Alans, ethnonim As with its numerous phonetic variations. In the ancient Türkic inscription monuments of the 8 c. Asses are listed as Türkic tribes. They are mentioned multiple times next to the Türks, Kirghiz, and are presented as a branch of Türks-Turgeshes [Bartold V.V., 1968, 204], and Kirghizes in the valley of the river Chu [Bartold V.V., 1963, 492]. The Eastern historians of the 10-11 cc., including M.Kashgari, write about the tribe ‘az keshe ‘people Az’ which, alongside with Alans and Kasa (Kasogs), undoubtedly, wereTürkic tribes [Bartold V.V., 1973, 109]. Al Biruni as a scientist declares that the language of Asses and Alans reminds the languages of Khoresmians and Pechenegs [Klyashtornyi S.G.,1964, 174-175]. Here it should be noted that Khoresmian is presumed as an Iranian language solely on the basis of few words preserved in the Arabian sources, just as Iranists have imposed this language on Tokhars and Sogdians, and other historical peoples. Actually, Khorezmians were basically Türkic speaking, and were included in the Massagetan confederation union, which the ancients identified with Huns. And as stated by Al Biruni, the Khoresmian language was close to Pechenegian, which, in turn, as acknowledged by the interpreter of Joseph Flavius, resembled Alanian-Yass language.

Let’s turn to the Russian annals, which say that in 965 AD Svyatoslav attacked Kozars (Khazars - M.Z.) and defeated both Yasses, and Kosogs. Here is an implication, identifying Khazars with Yasses. Besides, the Orientalists, identifying this statement with that of the Eastern historian Ibn Khaukal, assert that it tells about the Svyatoslav Volga campaign against Khazars, Bulgars, and Burtases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1887, 103]. If that is so, it means that Bulgars and Burtases of Volga were called Yasses. As writes S.M.Shpilevsky, the Russian prince Andrey Bogolubsky, living in the 12 c., had Bulgarian wife [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115]. And historian V.N.Tatischev calls ‘Yassian Princess’ the wife of the Prince, and asserts that the brother of the ‘Yassian Princess’ (brother - in - law of the Prince) Küchük killed Prince A. Bogolubsky in 1175 [Tatischev V.N., 1962, 375]. Küchük is obviously a Türkic name. The presence of this word in many Türkic ethnonims also says that ethnonim As designated Türkic tribes. So, V.Romadin, who prepared the works of V.V.Bartold for publishing, based on the fact that in the composition of the 7 c. ‘Badaiat-tavarikh’ the Kirghizes are called Asses, the ethnonim Kirghiz, which consist of two words kyryk and As (‘forty Asses’), connect it to the ethnic or geographical term Az, As or Us [Bartold V.V., 1963, 485]. The basis as (yas, az, us, uz), apparently, is present in the ethnonims Burtas, (burta-As) - ‘forest Asses’ or ‘Asses, engaged in honey’, Yazgyr (Oguz tribes in M.Kashgari), Yasyr – Türkmenian tribes [Kononov A.N., 1958, 92], Yazygs is a Sarmatian tribe, Oguzes ‘white, noble Uses’, Taulas (tauly Asses), i.e. ‘ mountain Asses’, Suas ‘water Asses’. Maris, in their ancient tradition, called Kazan Tatars Suases, and a part of them does it now. Ethnonim Suas was a self-name of Tatars [Chernyshev E.I., 1963, 135; Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 50-54].

Let’s pay a special attention to last two ethnonims: Taulas and Suas. As in a word Taulas (Tulas), which is the name of one of the mountain areas of Khazaria [Bartold V.V., 1973, 541, 544], and also, apparently, of its population, so in the word Suas the root As is applied together with Türkic determining words, which once again proves the Türkic speaking of Asses.

The Perm Tatars, whose ancestors were directly connected with Biar (Bilyar) and Bulgars, before acceptance of the ethnonim Tatars, which at that time was a status rank, called themselves Ostyak, which means ‘Ossian (Yassian) people’, for Ostyak comes from a word Ostyk~Oslyk. Ostyaks also took part in the formation of Bashkirs, therefore Perm and Western Siberian Tatars, and a part of Bashkirs, who were their Eastern neighbors, are called now Ostyak~Ishtyak~Ushtyak. The Tatar historian of the end of the 18-beginning of 19 cc. Yalchigul considered himself to be Bolgarlyk Ishtyak. Even in the 18 c. the Perm Tatars, in their appeals, stated that their ancestors were called Ostyaks [Ramazanova D.B., 1983, 145]. Also interesting is the fact that the ancient settlement centers of Perm Tatars, later becoming district centers, were called Os and Kungur, these names coincide with ethnonim As and Kungur (i.e. Kangyr – Pechenegs).

Thus, the word As with all its phonetical variations in the designation of the Türkic-speaking peoples was applied very widely, and in parallel with a word er (ir-ar). Apparently, in antiquity the Western peoples also quite actively used the ethnonim As as the name of Eastern peoples. So, in the Scandinavian mythology Asses was the name for the main group of gods, and at the same time it was stated that Asses came from Asia, hinting of the identity of the words Asses and Asia [Myths of the peoples of the world, 1980, 120].

There is one curious stroke in the Iranists’ description of the Alanian history. After deportation of Karachais and Balkars from Caucasus, the basically Türkic Nartovian epos that become common for them during the long centuries of Karachais-Balkars coexistence with Ossetians, was declared to be solely Ossetian, and on this ground the Ossetians were identified with Alans. Actually, here again the door opens very simply: Balkars and Karachais call themselves Alans from the most ancient times until present, and this epos first of all tells about Alans-Türks (i.e. Karachais-Balkars), and in the long years of joint life the Ossetians acquired the Nartovian epos.

§ 6. Close interaction of Alans with Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. Tracing the Alanian history, it is not difficult to notice that they cooperated most closely with Türks, at first with Sarmatians and Sarmatian people, Roxolans (in Türkish - Uraksy Alans, ‘Alans-farmers’), Siraks (i.e. Sary-ak people ‘white-yellow’, ancestors of Cumans), Aorses (Aor-Awar-Avars, -os is a Greek ending), Yazygs (Türks - Uzes). All historians admit the close link of Alans with these people, only in the definition of ethnolinguistic classification of these peoples do the opinions differ. Iranists classify them as Iranian speaking, Türkologists – as Türkic speaking, as supported by numerous historical facts.

Prior to sorting out the Alanian-Hunnish links, one should visualize Huns. The official historical science postulates that Huns, first mentioned in the Chinese sources, sometime in the II c. migrated from Central Asia to Urals, and from there in 70ties of the 4 c. poured into the Eastern Europe, thus initiating, supposably, the so-called The Great Migration of Peoples; allegedly Huns were the first Türks appearing in Europe; on the way to Europe they would have subdued Alans in the Northern Caucasus, and, led by the leader Balamber, crossed river Don, defeated Goths, Ostgoths, and Vestgoths, who infiltrated the Northern Pontic, and expelled Vestgoths to Thracia; supposedly crossing through Caucasus, they devastated Syria and Cappadocia, settled in Pannonia, and kept attacking the Eastern Roman empire. In 451 under Attila they invaded Gaul, but on Katalun fields Romans, Vestgoths, and Franks defeated them. After the death of Attila (453.) there were conflicts among Huns, and the German tribes devastated them in Pannonia. The Hunnish union broke up, and they left to Northern Pontic. Gradually, Huns disappeared as people, though their name still lingered for a long time as a common name for Northern Pontic nomadic pastoralists [Gumilev L.N. Huns]

Such an unreal explanation of the history by L.N.Gumilev raises questions: whether could nomads, having forded Volga, defeat strong Alans, Goths, Syrians, Anatolians (in Cappadocia), population of Pannonia, Gaul, Northern Italy? Certainly, this is unreal. How could L.N.Gumilev determine that Huns disappeared, while their ethnonim continued to last as a common name of the Pontic nomads? How he could know that ethnonim Huns for long time designated not Huns, but others? Whom? Why the advancing Romans, and together with them other peoples (more correctly, armies and colonists), did not constitute the Great Migration of Peoples, while creating a huge Roman empire, but the movement from the periphery to the central regions of the Roman empire of other peoples (liberation army, avenging colonists) is called a Great Migration of Peoples? Why Türks, at first as Huns, and then under the names of Avars, Türks, Khazars, Cumans, and Kipchaks constantly migrated from Asia to Europe? Where would they disappear there? How did they procreate so quickly in Asia? Etc. Trying to answer these questions makes it clear that the traditional presentation of Türks’ history is fashioned tendentiously, irrespectively of the real historical conditions.

Summarizing impartially all historical data based on real historical grounds, it is not difficult to suggest that Huns (Sen or Hen) at first were an undistinguished Türkic people among Türkic Scythians and Sarmatians. They started making themselves known in the 1 c. AD. The Greek historians, marking their presence in Europe, did not say a word about their arrival from Asia.

Thus, Dionysus (the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd c.) notes that on the Northwestern side of the Caspian sea live Scythians, Uns, Caspians, Albanians, and Kaduses... [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 186]. As we were proving more than once, Scythians were basically Türkic speaking (see ETHNIC ROOTS OF THE TATAR PEOPLE, § 3), Uns are Huns, with sound h dropped, Caspians also are Türkic ‘people of rocks’ (kas ‘rock’, pi~bi~bai ‘rich owner’), Albanians are Alans, Kaduses are Türkic Uzes~Uses among kad ‘rocks’.

Ptolemy (2 c. AD; B.3 Ch.5 – Translator’s note) writes that in European Sarmatia ‘below Agathyrsi (i.e. Akatsirs~agach ers ‘forest people’– M.Z.) live Savari (Türkic Suvars - M.Z.), between Basternae and Rhoxolani (Uraksy Alans, i.e. ‘Alans-farmers’ - M.Z.) live Huns [Latyshev V.V., 1883, 231-232].

Philostorgy, living in the end of the 4 c. (i.e., when, in the opinion of certain scientists, Huns moved to Eastern Europe), describing Huns, does not say a single word of their arrival from Asia, and writes: ‘These Uns are probably the people which ancients named Nevrs; they lived at Ripean mountains (Don Ridge S. of Donets river, Mid-Europian Uplands N. of it - Translator’s note), from which come the waters of Tanaid’ [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 741].

Zosim (2nd half of the 5c.) suggests that Huns are Royal Scythians [Ibis, 800]. The impartial analysis of the ethnographic data provides a basis to state that Royal Scythians were ancestors of Türkic peoples [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].

Thus, among peoples named Scythians and Sarmatians, at the beginning of our era, the Huns make themselves known; in the Assirian and other Eastern sources they were mentioned among the people living in the 3rd millennium BC. In the 4 c. in a fight for a domination in Northern Caucasus they defeated the Alanian power, and together with them revolted against colonial policy of the Roman empire, at first in Cappadocia, then in the western part of the empire, where have appeared new Gothic colonizers. Naturally, neither Huns, nor Alans, did not move to the West as a people, as it is imagined by the supporters of the ‘Great Migration Of Peoples’, it was the Hunnish-Alanian army that penetrated deep into the West. The main body of the Hunnish and Alanian peoples remained in the same places of habitation.

In the end of the 4 c. Huns, together with Alans, fell on Goths, who wanted to colonize the Northern Pontic. The main historian of Huns and Alans of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus, frequently equated them, for they were ethnically very close. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus not only emphasized that precisely the assistance of Alans helped Huns, but also quite often called attackers Alans’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 113].

After the death of Attila (453) the Hunnish union gradually disintegrated, and Huns as a ruling power do not appear any more, they fused with Türkic Alans and Khazars, while keeping their ethnonim Hun (Sen).

In the Gaul the Alans entered into a close contact with Vandals (Eastern Germans), together they devastated Gaul, and in the 409 resettled in Spain, where Alans received the middle part of Lusitania (later - Portugal) and Cartagena. However, in the 416 Vestgoths entered Spain and defeated Alans. In May of the 429 the Vandal King Geizerix together with subordinated Alans went to Africa, and, defeating the Roman armies, created a new Vandal and Alan state. As the result the Alanian troops dissolved among Vandals and local population. But in the Northern Pontic and in the Caucasus the Huns and Alans continued to cooperate closely.

Following disintegration of the Hunnish empire, in the decentralized period, various tribes and peoples tried to become the ruling group, therefore in the Byzantian sources frequently appear ethnonims: Akatsirs, Barsils, Saragurs, Savirs, Avars, Utigurs, Kutigurs, Bolgars, Khazars. All these ethnonims belong to Türkic populations. Barsils are the inhabitants of Berselia (Berzilia), which in many sources is considered as the country of Alans. Here is an obvious identification of Alans with Barsils~Bersuls, considered related to Khazars [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 117]. More than that, from Berzilia also came the Khazars. So, Theophan in 679-680 writes: ‘From the depths of Berzilia, the first Sarmatia, came the great people Khazars and began to dominate all land on that side down to the Pontic Sea’ [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 61].

From the 5 c. among Caucasian Alans, i.e. numerous Türkic peoples, other tribes also began to make themselves known: Khazars, Bulgars, Kipchaks etc. After the brilliant performance of the Türkic peoples, led by the Huns, against the colonial policy of Goths and Romans, the Huns ceased to be ruling, their place took Alans and Khazars, who competed on the political arena up to the 10 c. ‘From the 5 c. the push of Khazar Khaganate grows, establishing control over Alans ‘ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118]. In the 8 c., at the time of the Alanian expansion, the Alans once again proved that they supported Khazars. ‘The 10 c. marks a turn. Now the Khazars had to recognize their former vassals with the following words: ‘Alanian Kingdom is stronger and tougher than all other peoples around us’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118-119].

In the 11 c. in the Northern Caucasus others nations begin to raise – Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets), who at once joined with Alans, and established peaceful and loving relations [Djanashvili M., 1897, 36]. In this area Alans, together with Kipchaks, adopted Christianity.

In the 1222 Alans and Kipchaks come out together against Mongolo-Tatars. Seeing that they together represent an undefeatable force, Mongolo-Tatars used a trick. ‘Seeing danger, the leader of Chengizkanids (Subetai - Translator’s note)... sent gifts to Kipchaks and ordered to tell them, that they, being the same kin as the Mongols, should not rise against the brothers and be friends with Alans, who are entirely of another lineage’ [Karamzin N.M., 1988, 142]. Here Mongolo-Tatars figured, apparently, that their army at this time consisted primarily of the Kipchak Türks of the Central Asia, therefore they addressed Kipchaks as kins, and Alans of Caucasus were partially Kipchaks (ancestors of Karachai-Balkars), and partially Oguzes (ancestors of Azerbaidjans - inhabitants of Caucasian Albania - Alania).

It is known that soon all Kipchak steppes passed into the hands of Mongolo-Tatars. The Volga Bulgaria, the main component of whose population was referred to as Yasses, subordinated to Mongolo-Tatars in 1236, and Alans - Yasses of Northern Caucasus - in 1238.

Thus, Alans made their celebrated military and political route hand-to-hand with their Türkic kins: Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. From the 13 c. Alans-Yasses cease to be ruling among the other Türkic people. But it does not mean at all that they physically disappeared, they lived among others Türkic people and gradually entered into their ethnicity, accepting their ethnonim. Such a strong, scattered along all Eurasia people as Alans-Yasses, cannot be equated to Iranian speaking Ossetians by a single trait, and could not be suddenly reduced ‘by a miracle’ to the strictures of the Caucasus Ossetians.

If the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were Ossetian speaking, all Eurasia should have Ossetian toponyms. They do not exist, unless artificially (quasi-scientifically) produced. Thus, in all their attributes the Alans were Türkic, and took part in the formation of many Türkic peoples.

LITERATURE

Abaev V.I. Ossetian language and folklore. Vol.1. M. L.1949.

Ammianus Marcellinus. History. Kiev. 1908. Issue3.

Bartold V.V. Kirghizes. A historical sketch // Works Vol. II, Part I. M., 1963.

Bartold V.V. History of Türkish-Mongolian peoples // Works Vol.II, Part I, M., 1968.

Bartold V.V. Introduction to the edition ‘Khudud Al-Alm’ // Works Vol.VIII. M., 1973.

Bartold V.V. Geography of Ibn Said // Works Vol.VIII. M., 1973.

Vinogradov V.B. Alans in Europe // Questions of history. 1974. No 8.

Gumilev L.N. Huns // BSE. 3rd edition. Vol. 7.

Djanashvili M. Chronicles of the Georgian annals about Northern Caucasus // Collection for the description of Caucasian places and tribes. Tiflis, 1897. Issue. 22.

Elnitskiy L.A. Scythia of the Eurasian steppes. Historical Archeological Notes. Novosibirsk, 1977.

Zakiev M.Z. Problems of language and origin of Tatars. Kazan, 1986.

Karalkin P.I... About most ancient milking of cattle // Ethnography of the peoples of Altai and Western Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1978.

Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state. M., 1988.

Kafoev A.J. Adygian monuments. Nalchik, 1963.

Klyashtornyi S.G.,. Ancient Türkic Runic monuments. M., 1964.

Kononov A.N. A family tree of Türkmen. M. L.1958.

Kuznetsov V.A. Alans // BSE. 3rd Edition. Vol. 1.

Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M. About the origin of Türkic peoples. Cherkessk, 1993.

Latyshev C. C. Records of the ancient writers about Scythia and Caucasus. SPb., 1893. Vol.1.

Mamedova Farida. To a question about Albanian (Caucasian) ethnos // News AS Azerb. SSR. A series of history, philosophy and law. Baku, 1989. No 3.

Meschersky N.A. A history of Judean war by Joseph Flavius in ancient Russian translation M. L.1958.

Miziev I.M. Close to history. Nalchik, 1990.

Miziev I.M. Steps to sources of an ethnic history of Central Caucasus. Nalchik, 1986.

Miller Vs.F. Ancient Ossetian monument from Kuban area // Materials on Archeology of Caucasus. M., 1893 Issue. 3.

Miller Vs. Ossetian etudes. Researches. M., 1887.

Miller Vs. Epigraphical Iranian traces in the south of Russia // Magazine of the ministry national education. 1886. October.

Myths of the peoples of the world: Encyclopedia. M., 1980, Vol.1.

Nemeth. J. The list of words in As language, Hungarian Alans. Ordjonikidze, 1960.

Pogrebova M.N. Monuments of Scythian culture in Transcaucasia // Caucasus and Central Asia in an antiquity and Middle Ages. M., 1981.

Potanin G.N. At Votyaks of Elabujskiy district // News of society Archeology, History and Ethnography at Kazan University. Kazan, 1884. Vol. III, 1880-1882.

Ramazanova D.B. To history of formation of dialect of Perm Tatars // Perm Tatars. Kazan, 1983.

Tatischev V.N. Russian History. M. L.1962. Vol.1.

Fattakhov F.Sh. Zelenchuk epitaph... // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature monuments. Kazan, 1990.

Fattakhov F.Sh. In what language spoke Alans? // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature monuments. Kazan, 1990.

Khabichev M.A. Karachai-Balkars construction of names and words. Cherkessk, 1977.

Chernyshev E.I. Tatar village of second half 16 and 17 cc. // 1961Year-book on an agrarian history of Eastern Europe. Riga, 1963.

Chichurov I.S. The Byzantian historical works. M., 1980.

Shpilevsky S.M. Ancient cities and other Bulgaro-Tatar monuments in Kazan province. Kazan, 1877.

now this article gets really ridiculous. this man even goes on to question the sogdians and others of not being iranic with no proof just his opinion.

also, the scythians did not just "disappear" as this guy claims. they settle in eastern europe and eventually became other indo european tribes such as the saxons. the ones that remained were integrated into the turkic tribes like anatolians and azari's. 

again, this man timeline is off. the mass turkic migrations into the west did not start until after pre-islamic times.

small tribes such as huns and others did move into the west, but none survived, just like the scythians. they all branched out into different sects.

and also, the author keeps mentioning "iranists" as claiming that the scythians are indo european/indo iranian.

the truth is that it is westerners that first made the ossetian iranian connection, not iranists.  it has been western historians and western linguists making this case.

this shows the authors bias in trying to make this seem like a "false iranist claim"

merced12, a piece of advice is to show evidence from NEUTRAL sources, such as westerners or western encyclopaedias who have no relation to iranics nor turkics.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2006 at 11:30

Originally posted by AFG-PaShTuN AFG-PaShTuN wrote:

Why are some people still keen to search more into the Scythian history when most of their questions are answered?

I'll put it this way:

Saka/Scythians are the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan, there are many reasons that prove it, here are some that i know:

:: Southern Afghanistan was once called SAKA-STAN = The Land of Sakas
:: One of the biggest Pashtun/Afghan Tribe that lives there today is called Sakzai/Sakazai = Children or Son of Sak/Saka.
:: The Sakas of South Afghanistan still live in the exact same place as mentioned two thousand years ago, by historians such as Herodotus.
:: Pashto or Afghan language is believed to be very closely related to Saka language, in fact Proto-Pashto is known as Saka.
:: Saka = Blood related in Pashto, for ex. Saka Wror = Blood Brother

There are many other reasons to believe that the Afghans of Southern Afghanistan are the direct decendents of the Saka people, they might have moved to other places, but their origin or homeland is most likely to be the modern Afghanistan.

 

THere is NO doubt that the Scythians occupied, settled, and dispersed in what is today Afghanistan.  They created empires here, and the Indo-Scythians and Kushans (Tu-Cheh) created some of their most biggest achievements in Afghanistan.

BUT, the Scythians were not a homogenous society.  They were dispersed throughout the Steppe, and wherever the Steppe took them, some settled there.  Thats why there can be found Northwestern Iranian languages as far as the Caucasus, and Scythian artifacts as far east as Siberia.

I believe many people can claim Scythian descendancy, Afghans especially.  (The word Afghan derived from Ashva-kan, or Horsemen.) and the city of Bactria (in Balkh) was originally founded by Scythians who were later amalgamated with the migrating Aryans.



Edited by Afghanan
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2006 at 23:52
Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

THere is NO doubt that the Scythians occupied, settled, and dispersed in what is today Afghanistan.  They created empires here, and the Indo-Scythians and Kushans (Tu-Cheh) created some of their most biggest achievements in Afghanistan.

I shoud remind that the Kushans (Yue chi, Tohri) came from the east of Pamir, present day Uyghur region. The only writen documents in Tohri were found in this region dating back to 5th to 8th century.

The builders of another glorious empire Ephtalites (Yetai, white (Aq) Huns) were also from this region.

Quote

BUT, the Scythians were not a homogenous society.  They were dispersed throughout the Steppe, and wherever the Steppe took them, some settled there.  Thats why there can be found Northwestern Iranian languages as far as the Caucasus, and Scythian artifacts as far east as Siberia.

As Saka has a meaning of brother in Pushtun, it also has a meaning of little brother among the nothern Ili Uyghurs (Saqam means my brother).

Saqa also means something in the leadership. Seke means the goat leads the sheeps in Uyghur Turkic.

 And you can find many Geographical names with sak in this region such as Ikisaq (two sak), Oghuzsaq (Oghuz-sak), Toqquzsak (nine sak).

We have  a theory that Qazaq is from Qaz-sak>Ghuz-sak.

Quote

I believe many people can claim Scythian descendancy, Afghans especially.  (The word Afghan derived from Ashva-kan, or Horsemen.) and the city of Bactria (in Balkh) was originally founded by Scythians who were later amalgamated with the migrating Aryans.

I've been pondering about the name of Pushtun recently, after I learnt that the Pahtun and pushtun is just a dialectic difference. Like Pishawur and Pihawar.  

In Uyghur Pushti means decendant. Then surely Pushtun means Pushti-hun, the decendants of Huns.  I don't know if afghan ever used to designate a group of people.

Interestingly, Balkh (Baliq)  means city in Uyghur. You can find many Uyghur ancient cities with this name, like Bashbaliq, Ghubaliq etc. 

 

 

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 14:41
Originally posted by barbar barbar wrote:

Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

THere is NO doubt that the Scythians occupied, settled, and dispersed in what is today Afghanistan.  They created empires here, and the Indo-Scythians and Kushans (Tu-Cheh) created some of their most biggest achievements in Afghanistan.

I shoud remind that the Kushans (Yue chi, Tohri) came from the east of Pamir, present day Uyghur region. The only writen documents in Tohri were found in this region dating back to 5th to 8th century.

The builders of another glorious empire Ephtalites (Yetai, white (Aq) Huns) were also from this region.

Quote

BUT, the Scythians were not a homogenous society.  They were dispersed throughout the Steppe, and wherever the Steppe took them, some settled there.  Thats why there can be found Northwestern Iranian languages as far as the Caucasus, and Scythian artifacts as far east as Siberia.

As Saka has a meaning of brother in Pushtun, it also has a meaning of little brother among the nothern Ili Uyghurs (Saqam means my brother).

Saqa also means something in the leadership. Seke means the goat leads the sheeps in Uyghur Turkic.

 And you can find many Geographical names with sak in this region such as Ikisaq (two sak), Oghuzsaq (Oghuz-sak), Toqquzsak (nine sak).

We have  a theory that Qazaq is from Qaz-sak>Ghuz-sak.

Quote

I believe many people can claim Scythian descendancy, Afghans especially.  (The word Afghan derived from Ashva-kan, or Horsemen.) and the city of Bactria (in Balkh) was originally founded by Scythians who were later amalgamated with the migrating Aryans.

I've been pondering about the name of Pushtun recently, after I learnt that the Pahtun and pushtun is just a dialectic difference. Like Pishawur and Pihawar.  

In Uyghur Pushti means decendant. Then surely Pushtun means Pushti-hun, the decendants of Huns.  I don't know if afghan ever used to designate a group of people.

Interestingly, Balkh (Baliq)  means city in Uyghur. You can find many Uyghur ancient cities with this name, like Bashbaliq, Ghubaliq etc. 

Interesting points made Babar!

The Tu-Chi, also known as the Tocharians were displaced from their original homes by the invading Huns, they migrated to the fringes of Bactria, in which eventually they took over. 

Here is a quote from the book - Empire of the Steppes:

"About 177 or 176, Mao tun brought disaster for the first time on the Yueh-chih of western Kansu, which he boasts of having subjugated."

His son in turn made the King's skull into a drinking cup, and pushed the Yue Chih westward until they reached the Jaxartes river (Syr Darya).   According to Strabo, the Saka tribes that invaded Bactria were the "Asioi, Pasianoi, Tokharoi, and the Sakaraulai."

H.W. Bailey claims that the Tokharoi people were the 'very nucleus' of the Yue-chih people. 

Prof. Grousset writes, "...their migration was the signal for a general tumult of the peoples and a surge of nomads across eastern Iran.  Thrust back in the south by the Yue-chih, the Saka occupied Drangiana (Seistan) and Arakhosia (Kandahar).  The occupation was permanent, for from that time those countries became in Iranian nomenclature "the Saka country," Sakastana, whence the modern Persian Seistan." p. 31

"It is enough to recall here that from Seistan and Kandahar the Saka expanded to Kabul and the Punjab; then, when these countries were occupied by the Yue-chih, to Malvan and Gujarat, where Saka satraps remained until the fourth century AD.  As for the Yueh-chih of Bactria, Chinese history shows them as founding in the first century of this era the great dynasty of the Kushans (in Chinese, Kuei-shuang)." p. 32

 

 

The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2006 at 11:51
Well, I'm not going to re-enter this headache (I'm sure we'll get nowhere; none of us). But Pashtun, I was wondering if you study Iranian sources. Anyhow, I can't exactly remember the name of the article; but the whole article and the addresses could be found in the modern Iranian book 'mardomane jahan' (world's people).  A part goes to Sakas and their war with Hakamanachis. Sakas, according to old Iranian historians mentioned in this book, are described to be Mongoloid. If this is true, they must be of Steppe origin; and not Arian.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2006 at 13:01

Originally posted by gok_toruk gok_toruk wrote:

Well, I'm not going to re-enter this headache (I'm sure we'll get nowhere; none of us). But Pashtun, I was wondering if you study Iranian sources. Anyhow, I can't exactly remember the name of the article; but the whole article and the addresses could be found in the modern Iranian book 'mardomane jahan' (world's people).  A part goes to Sakas and their war with Hakamanachis. Sakas, according to old Iranian historians mentioned in this book, are described to be Mongoloid. If this is true, they must be of Steppe origin; and not Arian.

The Yueh-Chih/Tokharians were described by the CHinese as blue-eyed , red-bearded people.

Hepthalites were described by Grosset as Mongoloid, but Japenese and Russian historians claimed they were Indo-Scythian, or hence Indo-European.  The pictures of Scythians in their beautiful gold engravings definitely showed that they were not mongoloid originally.

 

 



Edited by Afghanan
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
kobalt View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Dec-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kobalt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2006 at 17:26
sag-deer from Ossetic
saka-horn,branch from Iranian
I found such information in internet. Can someone from Osetia and Iran agree with it? Horn of deer could means Sakae? The stag was important symbol for the Scythian.
They were nomads, so, they are not in the same place like 2000 years ago.
I think they could not stay in one place becouse of their own right. The nomads without hourse and rules went to the border of the Great Steps and look for a new place. Maybe the next generation of Sarmatian or changing of climate on the dried steps broke the groups of Scythian and their rights. The rest of them could be in diffrent places. The using of woman-warrior can be sign for a small population. I mean the class of autority. The nomads used a coalition with another tribes. So, we have Sakastan in Afganistan, Saka is country of Yacuzzi and Wielika Skufia/Great Scythia as Ukraine, the DNA of amazonian in Altai Mountain, and...and...



Edited by kobalt
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2006 at 22:41

Originally posted by gok_toruk gok_toruk wrote:

Well, I'm not going to re-enter this headache (I'm sure we'll get nowhere; none of us). But Pashtun, I was wondering if you study Iranian sources. Anyhow, I can't exactly remember the name of the article; but the whole article and the addresses could be found in the modern Iranian book 'mardomane jahan' (world's people).  A part goes to Sakas and their war with Hakamanachis. Sakas, according to old Iranian historians mentioned in this book, are described to be Mongoloid. If this is true, they must be of Steppe origin; and not Arian.

They could be mixed with Mongoloid people, but they were not completely Mongoloid. Maybe Turanoid, if the source is acurate.

There are plenty of sculptures about them, all are showing full beard and high nose bridge. Which is not  the characteristics of Mongoloid, but it can be of Turanoid.

In Uyghur turkic, we call beard as "Saqal".  An old respectable person (sometimes leader due to this) as Aqsaqal (white beard).  Can't you see any relation?

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Urungu Han View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jul-2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Urungu Han Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 06:06
Schytians is the first Turkish Empire,their leader Alp Er Tunga(er-warrior in Turkish) and the schytian army was Turk but the people aren't Turk.People were iranic nomads.
Back to Top
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Status: Offline
Points: 342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 12:40
Urungu Han is right, the sakas were a turkic confederation leaded by Alp Er Tunga. They consisted of the avsar , salur, pecenek tribes (many more) of the oghuz branch.
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice koç yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen ölür kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 13:11
Wait a minute. If we take the Oguz Turks as popularly starting with Oguz Han, Mete leader of the Huns around 220 BC, then how could you call the Scythians (Saka 3000-500 BC) Oguz?

Edited by Seko - 20-Jul-2006 at 13:14
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Afsar Beghi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jun-2006
Location: Azerbaijan
Status: Offline
Points: 342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afsar Beghi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 13:15
sorry my mistake , they joined the turkic tribes of the saka turkic federation after Alp Er Tunga was killed. They lived mostly in Iran/Irak. From there some of the Oghuz came to turkey.
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice koç yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen ölür kalan sağlar bizimdir!
Back to Top
Savdogar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jul-2006
Location: Uzbekistan
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Savdogar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 07:04

You are discussing about Scythians, Sakas.

Do you know anything about Tumaris, Shiroq , Spitamen - national heros of Central Asia?

Scythians are turkic or iranian!!! what a mess!!!

They were Central Asian nomads, that is all.

I am very unhappy of pan-turkists and pan-iranist who write all kind of mess about the history.
 
Why dont you come to Uzbekistan and learn the culture, myths of Uzbek and Tajik??? I am sure you will understand Central Asia is unique region where all those methodologies for historical analysis is useless for our culture, nation and land.
 
Please, note that Central Asia is such place where your arguments will not work.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 13:46
Welcome Savdogar. The Steppes of Centaral Asia have a history with diverse cultures and people. I would like to hear what Uzbeks think about the Saka? Maybe you could shed some light on this discussion. Thanks.
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.